SAMR-RB 14 August 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20150019098 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 11 July 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions. I direct no further correction be made to the record of the individual concerned. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 14 December 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 11 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019098 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _____x___ ____x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 11 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019098 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing a DD Form 214 for the period ending 3 April 1970 to show the character of his service as "Under Honorable Conditions (General)." ______________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. BOARD DATE: 11 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019098 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 discharge for the period ending 3 April 1970 to under honorable conditions (general). 2. The applicant states: a. He found a mistake in the previous Army Board of Correction of Military Record (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20150002851, dated 8 October 2015, which states he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO; however, he was never assigned in Missouri. (The aforementioned case will not be discussed further in this case, since it has no bearing on the decision of the Board regarding the present case.) b. He enlisted 1 day after his 17th birthday. At boot camp, the drill sergeant used provoking words toward the Soldiers. c. When he returned home from Vietnam, he was spat on and called very nasty names. If he asked for help, he was told to "man up." d. He was assigned to Fort Meade, MD, and Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated shortly thereafter. As a result, he was sent to Washington, DC, for riot control and was told to "lock and load." In his mind, he was just a 19-year old kid who was told to shoot American citizens if he felt his life was in danger. He was a white kid from Memphis, TN, which made things much worse. e. He wanted to serve his country against foreign enemies and he was willing to give his life for that, but not to injure American citizens. He also wanted to be like his uncle who was a career Soldier and who achieved the rank of master sergeant. Today, all of the Army units and personnel are willing to help the returning veterans. f. When he was in the Army, he received a speeding ticket; however, it should not have been something for which he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), which tarnished his record. He states, while in Vietnam, he volunteered for everything, including requesting a transfer to C Troop, in the 1st Squadron, 4th Calvary, so he could be more involved in the fighting. He drove a M48 tank, and at night, he would volunteer to go outside the perimeter and try to find the Viet Cong, who would fire shots to harass the Soldiers. g. He regrets his serious error in judgement when he was absent without leave (AWOL) in September 1968. As a result, he was court-martialed for his actions, and received his UCOTH discharge as a result. However, due to the stress of being bullied from the other Soldiers in his unit and the war, he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He never said anything because he feared looking weak or that his peers might lose confidence in his abilities to lead. He did not want that burden on his shoulders, in addition to already being considered uneducated. He felt that the harassment and bullying would only be magnified. h. He will be 68 years old soon and suffers from complications from Agent Orange. He hopes that the Board will upgrade his discharge since he was just trying to cope with a very unpopular war, and going AWOL was his only way out. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 10 April 2015 * DD Form 293, dated 30 January 2017 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 1 November 1966 * a photograph of himself on his 19th birthday in Vietnam, dated 8 September 1967 * Bronze Star Medal (BSM) Certificate for the period August 1967 to February 1968 * Certificate of Appreciation for the period February 1967-February 1968 * Certificate of Meritorious Service for the period 5 April 1968 – 13 April 1968 * Certificate of Recognition, issued by The First Infantry Division, Cantigny War Memorial Museum of the First Division * DD Form 214 for the period ending 3 April 1970 * Marriage License, State of MS, dated 24 November 1975 * his daughter's birth certificate, issued by Gallaway Memorial Hospital, Fulton, MI., dated 12 June 1980 * his second daughter's fingerprints * VA letter, dated 21 March 2016 * VA letter, dated 29 November 2016 * self-authored statement, dated 11 December 2016 * self-authored statement, dated 13 January 2017 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement In Support of Claim), dated 31 January 2017 * statement from the applicant's spouse * statement from the applicant's oldest daughter * statement from the applicant's second daughter * character reference, dated 6 February 2017 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 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 1965. On 1 November 1966, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. 3. On 2 November 1966, he reenlisted. He held military occupational specialties 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic) and 11E (Armor Crewman). 4. He served in Germany from 13 April to 22 December 1966. 5. He served in Vietnam from 12 February 1967 to 6 February 1968, and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 1st Infantry Division. 6. General Orders Number 963 issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, dated 5 February 1968, show the applicant was awarded the BSM for meritorious service in the Republic of Vietnam from August 1967 to February 1968. 7. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he returned the United States on 19 March 1968 and was assigned to Troop C, 1st Squadron, 6th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Meade, MD. 8. On 29 August 1968, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for speeding on Fort Leonard and Rock Avenue, Fort Meade, MD, in his privately owned vehicle on 17 August 1968. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $15.00 pay. 9. Special Court-Martial (SPCM) Order Number 205 issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Campbell, KY, dated 25 March 1969, shows the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 8 September 1968 to 14 January 1969. The court sentenced him to hard labor without confinement for 3 months, forfeiture of $167.00 pay for 3 months, and reduction to the rank/grade of specialist four/E-4. However, a portion of the applicant's sentence was set aside due to an inconsistent sentence and he was sentenced to forfeiture of $100.00 pay in lieu of $167.00 pay for 3 months. The rest of his sentence remained unchanged. 10. On 28 February 1970, he received NJP under provisions of the Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully using racially provoking words toward several other Soldiers. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 pay for 2 months and reduction to the rank/grade of private two/E-2. 11. The available records do not contain copies of the documentation surrounding the applicant's discharge processing. 12. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged on 3 April 1970, under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 14e, for misconduct – commission of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. His DD Form 214 shows the following entries: * item 11a (Type of Transfer or Discharge) – DISCHARGE * item 11c (Reason and Authority) – Paragraph 14e, Army Regulation  635-212, separation program number 28B * item 13a (Character of Service) – Under Conditions Other than Honorable * item 22(a)1 (Net Service This Period) – 2 years and 4 months * item 22(a)3 (Total) – 3 years, 5 months, and 23 days * item 26a (Non-Pay Periods Time Lost) – 8 September 1968-13 January 1969 and 9 April 1969-3 January 1970 (a total of 398 days) * item 30 (Remarks) – Highest civilian education level attained: 9 Years – General Course 13. The applicant provided several documents in support of his request, including his marriage certificate, documents of his children, and a picture of himself. 14. He provided a self-authored letter essentially stating: a. He was too young to deal with the bullying and the aftermath of an unpopular war. b. He had a ninth grade education and was only 17 years old at the time of his enlistment. c. He proudly volunteered to serve his country and received the BSM for meritorious service. d. When he returned to the States and was stationed in Fort Meade, MD, he could not cope with the thought of hurting American citizens when he was told to provide security during the riots that happened in Washington, DC, when people were protesting the war. e. As time progressed, he greatly regrets his decision to be AWOL, but felt it was his only option at the time. f. As a result, he developed what has come to be known as PTSD. 15. He also provided letters from his family that attest to the kind of man he is today, a family man, who provides for his family and takes care of his friends, but a man who still deals with his demons. 16. He also provided a character-reference letter from an individual who has known him a long time and states he has never known him to be anything less than a man of his word, a loving husband, a devoted father to his daughters, and to his grandchildren. 17. In processing his case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency Staff Clinical Psychologist on 20 June 2017, which states: a. The applicant's records are void of medical documentation, with the exception of one VA encounter, dated 5 August 2016, in which he contacted the VA reporting his intention to kill himself due to being frustrated with the VA claims process. He reported being in the process of filing his own claim without the use of a Veterans Services Officer and endorsed feeling overwhelmed and confused by questionnaires sent to him by the Regional VA Office. His plan was to overdose on pills when his wife went to bed and was adamant with the responder that he intended to harm himself. Based on a review of the available records, it is unclear if the applicant actually attempted to overdose before first responders arrived; however, a follow-up note indicated he was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. b. The ARBA Clinical Psychologist was asked to determine if the applicant's separation from the military was due to a diagnosis of PTSD or another boardable behavioral health condition. The psychologist's opinion is based on the information provided by the Board as the Department of Defense (DOD) electronic medical record (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application) was not in use at the time of his service. Based on thorough review of available medical records, there is a lack of evidence showing he met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. However, despite a lack of military medical records indicating a behavioral health diagnosis, there is indication that he was experiencing a significant amount of stress and possibly PTSD-like symptoms following his return from Vietnam. c. PTSD-like symptoms appear to have negatively impacted his mood and functioning, and can be associated with avoidant behaviors such as being AWOL. Given that PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis during his time in service, it is unlikely that he or anyone else recognized and attributed his misconduct and period of unauthorized absences to the effects of his deployment experiences. Supporting medical documentation from the VA indicated he did not receive treatment at the VA due to his undesirable discharge but had an emergency contact with the VA in which he was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder following a period of suicidal ideation with intent and a plan. In summary, given his need for continued supportive services to address medical and behavioral health conditions, his PTSD-like symptoms more likely than not contributed to his misconduct that led to his separation from active duty. 18. The applicant was provided with a copy of the advisory opinion for an opportunity to respond. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at that time, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness. It provided that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness when their records were characterized by one or more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction, an established pattern of shirking, and/or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. This regulation also prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted an honorable or a general discharge. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board of Correction of Military Record) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 4. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. 5. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 6. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 7. The fifth edition of the DSM was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms, the seventh criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A – Stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows (one required): (1) direct exposure; (2) witnessing, in person; (3) indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental; or (4) repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders collecting body parts, professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B – Intrusion Symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s) (one required): (1) recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories; (2) traumatic nightmares; (3) dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness; (4) intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders; or (5) marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C – Avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event (one required): (1) trauma-related thoughts or feelings or (2) trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D – Negative Alterations in Cognitions and Mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs); (2) persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"); (3) persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences; (4) persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame); (5) markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities, feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement); and (6) constricted affect, persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E – Alterations in Arousal and Reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) irritable or aggressive behavior, (2) self-destructive or reckless behavior, (3) hypervigilance, (4) exaggerated startle response, (5) problems in concentration, and (6) sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F – Duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 month. g. Criterion G – Functional Significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H – Exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 8. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD, the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldiers' misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from a temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 9. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicants' service. 10. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will 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 is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * does 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? * do 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? 11. Although DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC 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. Conditions documented in the records 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 UOTHC characterization of service. BCM/NRs will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. 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. BCM/NRs 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge UOTHC to general under honorable conditions was carefully considered. 2. The applicant served in Vietnam from 12 February 1967 to 6 February 1968 and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, where he was awarded the BSM. 3. On 19 March 1968 upon the applicant's return to the United States, he was assigned to Troop C, 1st Squadron, 6th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Meade, MD. 4. The applicant's records reveal that he received two NJPs and a SPCM conviction for misconduct (being AWOL, wrongfully using provoking words, and speeding.) Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him. Although the applicant's separation documents are not in his record, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it is presumed that his discharge was carried out in accordance with the applicable regulation, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 5. The applicant stated he served his country honorably against the enemy in Vietnam and earned a BSM as a result. However, he was very young and bullied during his time in service and he was traumatized by the way he was treated upon his return to the States; he was spat upon and called nasty names for serving his country. In addition, when he was told he might have to injure American citizens during the war protests, he broke down and was AWOL. He also stated he regrets his decision to be AWOL. 6. The applicant also provided letters of support from his family and a character-reference letter from a friend who state he is a good family man who stands behind his friends, supports his family, pays his bills, and does his best every day to be a good man, father, husband, and friend. 7. In an advisory opinion from the ARBA Staff Psychologist, she opined that based on the information available, it is likely that the applicant's PTSD-like symptoms existed at the time of his service, especially during his service in Vietnam, and was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge. Most recently, his emergency contact with the VA in which he was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder following a period of suicidal ideation with intent and a plan most likely resulted from his experiences during Vietnam which went undiagnosed and therefore untreated. Additionally, she opined that it is unlikely that he or anyone else recognized and attributed his misconduct and period of AWOL to the effects of his time in Vitenam and his PTSD-like symptoms. In summary, given the applicant's need for continued supportive services to address medical and behavioral health conditions, his PTSD-like symptoms more likely than not contributed to the misconduct that led to his separation from active duty. 8. DOD now has a thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Consequently, Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and who were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150019098 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150019098 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2