IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010334 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ____x___ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010334 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 August 1974 as follows: * Delete the social security number listed in item 3, and replace it with the SSN found on General Orders Number 1873, issued by Headquarters, Americal Division, dated 21 March 1969 * Delete the date of birth listed in item 4, and replace it with the date of birth identified on his DD Form 4, dated 14 October 1966 * Delete the entry "NVAL" from item 19, and replace it with a check in the "YES" block * Delete the Vietnam Service Medal from item 26, and replace it with the Vietnam Service Medal with six bronze service stars; add the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * Delete the entry "NVAL" next to the last foreign service tour in item 27, and replace it with "SERVICE IN VIETNAM: OCTOBER 1967 TO APRIL 1969" 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * correcting his record to show his eye color as green instead of blue * adding the Silver Star and Purple Heart to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 August 1974 * showing his primary military occupational specialty as 13B40 instead of 13B30 on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 August 1974 * locating his complete military records, to include all documents related to his service in Vietnam * upgrading his under other than honorable discharge to either general under honorable conditions or honorable _____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010334 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests: * an upgrade of his under other than honorable discharge to either general under honorable conditions, or honorable * in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to reflect his service in Vietnam, and to show his already-awarded Silver Star and Purple Heart * to have his complete records located correction of his records to show his * social security number (SSN) as , not or * date of birth (DOB) as XXXX instead of XXXX * eye color is green, not blue * military occupational specialty (MOS) as 13B40 (Cannon Crewmember) [showing skill level 4 - denoting a noncommissioned officer/leader having detailed knowledge of tasks performed by subordinates], not 13B30 [indicating a skill level 3 associated with advanced journeyman (not leader) tasks prior to July 1978, skill level was not tied to rank, as such sergeant/pay grade E-5 could be shown as skill level 4] 2. The applicant states, in effect: * he served in Vietnam from 7 July 1967 to 2 June 1969; his records do not reflect his service * when he was in Vietnam, his MOS was 13B40 and he was assigned to the Service Battery, 3rd Battalion, 18th Artillery Regiment, 23rd Infantry Division (Americal) Artillery * while in Vietnam, he was awarded a Silver Star and a Purple Heart, but these awards are not listed on his DD Form 214, it only shows his Bronze Star Medal * an injustice occurred in that he received ineffective counsel with regard to his special court-martial; additionally, his personnel records were not available * had they been present at the time of his court-martial, his personnel records would have affirmed both his service in Vietnam, and that he was not absent without leave (AWOL); rather, he was on an authorized special 45 day leave as of 2 May 1969, and had been granted an additional 30 days of leave * he has been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for the past 46 years as a result of his service; his adverse discharge prevents him from obtaining the help he needs from the Department of Veterans Affairs * by implication, he appears to suggest his PTSD contributed to the misconduct that led to his discharge 3. The applicant provides a document, undated, apparently from the Social Security Administration showing earnings from 1966 to 2009. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. A search was conducted for the applicant's complete military records, but they are not available for review. Most documents related to his service immediately following his enlistment, through his service in Vietnam are not present. There are sufficient documents in his partial service record, however, to address his requests. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1966. 4. His available service record shows, while assigned to the U.S. Army Quartermaster School, Fort Lee, VA, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 18 January 1967. His DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) reflects he was charged with being AWOL from 14 to 18 January 1967. 5. General Orders (GO) Number 1873, dated 21 March 1969, issued by Headquarters, Americal Division, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force for the period October 1967 to April 1969. a. This award was revoked in GO Number 1021, dated 28 January 1970, issued by Headquarters, Americal Division. b. The order lists his SSN as . c. The period of service reflected indicates qualification for participation in six campaigns: * Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III (1 June 1967 to 29 January 1968) * Tet Counteroffensive (30 January 1968 to 1 April 1968) * Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase IV (2 April 1968 to 30 June 1968) * Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase V (1 July 1968 to 1 November 1968) * Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase VI (2 November 1968 to 22 February 1969) * Tet 69 Counteroffensive, 1969 (23 February 1969 to 8 June 1969) 6. Special Court-Martial Order Number 1014, dated 2 September 1969, issued by Headquarters Battalion, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center (USAFACFS), Fort Sill, OK shows: a. Consistent with his plea, he was found guilty and convicted of one specification of being AWOL from the Service Battery, 3rd Battalion, 18th Artillery Regiment, located in Vietnam, for the period 14 June to 13 July 1969 and a second specification of being AWOL from the Special Processing Detachment, Headquarters Battalion, USAFACFS, from 16 July to 29 July 1969. b. Sentence was adjudged on 27 August 1969. His punishment was forfeiture of $75 pay for 4 months and reduction from sergeant/E-5 to private (PV2)/E-2. On 2 September 1969, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for the reduction to PV2/E-2. 7. He accepted NJP on or about 17 September 1969 for being AWOL from 7 to 8 September 1969, while assigned to the Special Processing Detachment, Headquarters Battalion, USAFACFS. 8. On 29 November 1969, he departed his unit at Fort Sill in an AWOL status. He was dropped from Army rolls on 1 December 1969. He turned himself in, and was returned to military control on 2 1974. 9. His complete discharge packet cannot be located, but the available evidence shows the following action was taken by the separation authority on 2 August 1974. a. The evidence reflects the approval of his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service. It also lists his SSN as . b. He was directed to receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (having a character of service of under other than honorable conditions) and to be reduced to private/E-1. c. His service record also reflects, based on his application dated 28 May 1980, his discharge was reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). The ADRB's Case Report and Directive provides the following relevant information: (1) He was charged with being AWOL for the period 29 November 1969 to 24 July 1974. (2) He requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 after consulting with counsel (The Judge Advocate General officer). 10. His DD Form 214 indicates he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 6 August 1974. The authority and reason is chapter 10, AR 635-200. The DD Form 214 also contains the following entries: * Item 3 (SSN) is * Item 4 (DOB) is XXXX * Item 15 (Date Entered Active Duty this Period) as 14 October 1966 * Item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and Title), 13B30 * Item 18 (Record of Service) shows all sub-items are unverified (this includes his net active service for the period of the report and his foreign/sea service) * Item 19 (Indochina or Korea Service since August 5, 1964) does not show either the "YES" or "NO" block being checked; it contains the entry, "NVAL" * Item 21 (Time Lost in the preceding 2 years), 730 days * Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaigns Awarded or Authorized) lists the Bronze Star Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Item 27 (Remarks), he was separated on temporary records and the applicant's affidavit; time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, was 1,712 days 11. The ADRB addressed his request for the upgrade of his character of service, submitted on 28 May 1980. He appeared before the ADRB with counsel on 30 October 1981. a. With his application, he included a self-authored statement, essentially indicating: * he enlisted in the Army from Oklahoma City, OK on 14 October 1966; when he was only 17 years old * he was sent to Vietnam; his entire time there was a "living hell" * his service in Vietnam caused him great distress, both while in Vietnam and upon his return home * on completion of his tour, he was told he could return home, take leave, and then report to Fort Sill for final discharge under the "early-out" program * when his leave ended, he personally called the Pentagon requesting an extension of his leave because of some personal problems * the Pentagon granted him a 15-day extension; he reported to Fort Sill when he completed the leave extension * he lost his leave papers and was unable to prove he was not AWOL; the leadership at Fort Sill refused to call the Pentagon to verify his leave extension * no records were available, they held him for being AWOL; he then left Fort Sill and went home * the mix-up regarding his personnel records was his primary reason for going AWOL b. In his appearance before the ADRB, he provided the following in testimony, stating in effect: * while in Vietnam, he was assigned to an artillery unit; he ran convoys throughout Vietnam * he was involved in a lot of combat; after he extended his tour, two of his friends were killed * he extended his tour in Vietnam so that he could become eligible for an early release; after leaving Vietnam, he was to report to the Presidio of San Francisco for discharge * he had no indiscipline while in Vietnam, and rose to the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5; * he got married when he returned, but his wife discussed the possibility of an annulment after only one month of marriage * his wife left him, and he remained home; he did not report to the Presidio as required * he traveled to Oklahoma to find his wife, and, while there, he turned himself in at Fort Sill * he had another short period of AWOL while he sought civilian help for his nightmares; he also sought Congressional help because of his AWOL status * he was given a special court-martial for being AWOL; soon after this he initiated his 4 and 1/2 year period of AWOL * when he returned, he turned himself in, and opted for discharge in lieu of court-martial c. After considering his case, the ADRB denied his request for an upgrade on 17 November 1981. 12. Additional relevant documents that are available include: a. DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) (identified as being a temporary record prepared by the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Sill, OK). * Item 1 (Name and SSN) lists his SSN as * Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) is blank * Item 27 (Military Education) is blank * Item 31 (Foreign Service) is blank * Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows: 29 November 1969 - AWOL; 1 December 1969 - dropped from the rolls (Desertion); 2 1974 - surrendered to military authority, Fort Sill; and 2 1974 - duty MOS 57G40, Duty Foreman, imprisonment, PCF, Fort Sill * Item 40 (Wounds) is blank * Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) is blank * Item 44 (Time Lost under Section 972, Title 10 U.S. Code and Subsequent to Normal Date Expiration Term of Service) states: 29 November 1969 to 30 November 1969 - 2 days AWOL; 1 December 1969 to 24 July 1974 - 1697 days AWOL to Desertion; and 2 1974 to 5 August 1974 - 11 days imprisonment b. DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the U.S.) shows the following: * he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1966 for a term of 3 years * his military service number was RA 15XXXXXX; the DD Form 4 does not list his SSN * his DOB is XXXX * eye color is blue c. His service record is void of any documentation showing he was awarded the Silver Star or the Purple Heart. In addition, there are no Western Union messages or other medical documents affirming he was wounded in action, or treated for wounds. 13. His name is not on the Vietnam Casualty List. This is a listing of Vietnam-era casualties commonly used to verify entitlement to award of the Purple Heart. 14. Additionally, a review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, revealed orders awarding and revoking the Bronze Star Medal. It failed to reveal any orders for either the Silver Star or Purple Heart. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes policies and procedures for military awards. a. The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy. The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. b. The Purple Heart is awarded for a wound or injury sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound or injury was the result of hostile action, the wound or injury must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. c. A bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign. 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam. This pamphlet shows all units in Vietnam were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 8, dated 1974. 3. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the completion of the DD Form 214. Source documents include the DD Form 4, DA Form 20, and orders. This regulation essentially states: * item 3 will show the SSN, as listed in source documents * item 4, the same applies to item 4 when listing the DOB * Item 16a listed the MOS code, title, and date of award * Item 18f was to show the total active duty outside the continental limits of the U.S. for the period covered by the DD Form 214 * Item 19 indicated service in Vietnam by checking the "YES" block, and reflecting the specific dates of service 4. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and level of performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 5. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions, and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional. The Boards were to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service based on the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors. 6. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations should be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct, and whether an upgrade was warranted, the following factors were to be carefully considered: * was it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * did the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * did the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * did mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * how serious was the misconduct? 7. Although the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. a. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. b. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. a. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. b. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests administrative corrections of his DD Form 214 and records. With regard to correction of records other than the DD Form 214, documents, such as the DD Form 4 or DA Form 20, represent snapshots of a Soldier's personnel data as it was at the time the respective forms were produced. The ABCMR limits corrective action to those documents normally reviewed after a Soldier's separation, i.e. the DD Form 214. a. He notes an error was made regarding his eye color, contending his eyes are green, not blue. His DD Form 4 listed his eye color as blue. b. Given the fact the DD Form 4 is not normally reviewed after separation, no correction is required. 2. He asserts his SSN is incorrectly listed on his DD Form 214, in that it should be , not or . His record contains two documents, the GO awarding him the Bronze Star Medal and the indorsement showing the action taken by the separation authority, that both reflect his SSN as . It would be appropriate to correct his SSN on his DD Form 214 so that it matches the one listed on Bronze Star Medal orders. 3. He states his DOB is XXXX, and his DD Form 214 incorrectly lists it as 5 July XXXX. His DD Form 4 also indicates his DOB is XXXX. It would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 accordingly. 4. The applicant contends his MOS should be listed as 13B40 instead of 13B30 on his DD Form 214. He offers no evidence, however, to support his contention, and his available evidence is void of any documentation that would affirm his assertion. The Board is not an investigative body and, barring evidence to the contrary, it presumes what is stated on the DD Form 214 is administratively correct. Given the absence of evidence, no correction is required. 5. He requests correction of his DD Form 214 to reflect his service in Vietnam as well as his already-awarded Silver Star and Purple Heart. He states he was in Vietnam from 7 July 1967 to 2 June 1969. * his DD Form 214 currently shows all service, to include foreign service, as being unverified * item 19 of the DD Form 214 does not indicate service in either Indochina or Korea, and item 27 lists no dates of service for Vietnam * item 27 of his DD Form 214 lists the award of the Bronze Star Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960); his Vietnam Service Medal, however, does not include the campaigns in which he participated * DA Form 20 is void of any reference to service in Vietnam; it also does not show the award of either the Silver Star or the Purple Heart * GO awarded him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service against a hostile force during the period October 1967 to April 1969; (this award was later revoked, but it is the general policy of the Board not to cause an applicant to be worse off than he or she would have been had the Board not acted in the case; thus, it would be appropriate to take no action to remove the Bronze Star Medal from his DD Form 214) * a review of the ADCARS database failed to confirm either the awards of the Silver Star or Purple Heart * the Vietnam Casualty Roster did not show the applicant has having been wounded in action 6. Based on the foregoing, it would be reasonable to conclude: a. He did serve in Vietnam, and, while exact days not are reflected, there is sufficient evidence to support a period of service from October 1967 to April 1969. It would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 to show he served in Indochina, and to include in the remarks that he served during the above-stated period. b. While there is insufficient evidence to confirm either the award of the Silver Star or the Purple Heart, his Vietnam Service Medal should be corrected to show the award of six bronze service stars for participation in six campaigns. c. In addition, all units in Vietnam were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and this award is not noted on his DD Form 214. 7. He contends he received inadequate legal counsel for his special court-martial, for which, consistent with his plea, he was found guilty of being AWOL for two periods. Other than presenting his contentions, he offers no documented proof of his claims. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume administrative regularity. 8. As to his request regarding the upgrade of his character of service, given his record of NJP as well as the 1,712 days of lost time, the applicant's service does not appear to meet the standards of acceptable conduct, and the level of duty performance normally required for an honorable or general under honorable conditions discharge. Nonetheless, he indicates he has been suffering from PTSD for the past 46 years. By implication, he appears to suggest his PTSD could have contributed to the misconduct that led to his discharge. a. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs to carefully consider applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions, and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional. b. Neither DOD nor the medical community recognized PTSD at the time of his discharge. Both have since come to a more thorough understanding of PTSD, and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's behavior. c. Although his self-described reactions and periods of AWOL might appear consistent with symptoms typically associated with PTSD, he provides no proof that a behavioral health provider, credentialed to affirm a diagnosis of PTSD, ever provided such a diagnosis, and that his PTSD, thus diagnosed, resulted from his service in Vietnam. 9. The available evidence shows the applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. a. Discharges under this chapter are voluntary. b. The applicant's complete discharge packet is not available for review, but his available service record contains a document showing the separation authority's action. c. Additionally, the Case Report and Directive issued by the ADRB indicates he had the opportunity to consult with counsel ( a JAG officer) prior to submitting his request for discharge. d. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 affirms the basis of his discharge was chapter 10, AR 635-200. 10. Based on the available evidence, it is apparent the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time. There is no evidence that would indicate an injustice or error occurred, nor does the applicant offer proof that would indicate otherwise. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume administrative regularity. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010334 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010334 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2