IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001044 BOARD VOTE: ____X_____ ___X____ ___X_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001044 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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: a. removing from his Official Military Personnel File the DA Form 67-9 for the period 26 January 2008 through 4 August 2008, and all allied documents, that are filed in the performance folder of his Official Military Personnel File, including copies of the DA Form 67-9 and allied documents that may be filed in other sections of his Army Military Human Resource Record and any other military personnel records; b. removing from his Official Military Personnel File (performance and restricted folders), Army Military Human Resource Record sections/folders, and any other military personnel records the: * Army Board for Correction of Military Records memorandum, dated 28 January 2011, and all allied documents * Officer Special Review Board, Record of Proceedings, dated 7 April 2011, and all allied documents * Army Board for Correction of Military Records, Record of Proceedings, dated 3 November 2011, and all allied documents * Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 1 August 2013, and all allied documents c. issuing separate correspondence to the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, with instructions to: (1) refer his records to a special selection board under the fiscal year 2014 major promotion selection board criteria and, if selected and contingent upon Senate confirmation, promoting him based on his active date of rank of 1 February 2008, and paying to him all associated back pay and allowances he may be due; (2) if not selected for promotion to major under the fiscal year 2014 promotion selection board criteria, refer his records to a special selection board under the fiscal year 2015 major promotion selection board criteria and, if selected and contingent upon Senate confirmation, promoting him based on his active date of rank of 1 February 2008, and paying to him all associated back pay and allowances he may be due; or (3) if not by the special selection board for promotion to major under the fiscal year 2014 and 2015 promotion selection boards, notify the applicant. 2. To ensure this decision results in no unintended harm to the individual concerned, this Record of Proceedings and all documents related to this appeal, except the correspondence pertaining to the Special Selection Board, will be returned to this Board for permanent filing. The Record of Proceedings and associated documents, and those identified in paragraph 1b, above, will not be filed in the individual's Official Military Personnel File or any other folder/section of the Army Military Human Resource Record. ____________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: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001044 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/COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The case comes before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on a remand from the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia. In a Memorandum Opinion, issued on 15 January 2016, the Court noted it must limit its inquiry to whether the Secretary of the Army's decision making process was deficient, not whether his decision was correct. * The Court granted summary judgment in favor of – * the applicant pertaining to that portion of the action based on Army Regulation (AR) 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 3-23 (Unproven derogatory information) * the U.S. Army pertaining to that portion of the action based on AR 623-3, paragraph 3-39 (Modification to previously submitted reports) and paragraph 3-40 (Newly received favorable information) * Footnote 8 of the Memorandum Opinion shows, in pertinent part – * "Though the parties rely on the 2007 regulations, they have since been amended, the most [recent] regulations took effect on January 1, 2006." * "Because the 2007 regulations were in effect at the time that the contested OER [Officer Evaluation Report] was issued, and because the parties seem to agree that the 2007 regulations apply to this dispute, the Court will rely on that version of the regulation in this opinion." * However, the Court notes that the 2015 regulations include changes in the 'Unproven Derogatory Information' section. Now, the regulation begins with a broad statement that '[a]ny mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if later the derogatory information is unfounded." * "Rating officials are not prohibited from commenting on a court-martial (judicial) if completed, but the comments should focus on the behavior that led to the court-martial rather than the court-martial itself. If the rated Soldier is acquitted at a court-martial … comments about the underlying incident will not be included in the evaluation…." * The Memorandum Opinion is submitted for review by the Board. 2. The applicant and his counsel, in effect, request removal of a DA Form 67-9 (OER) covering the period 26 January 2008 through 4 August 2008, from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). No new documentary evidence was provided subsequent to the Court remand. (The DA Form 67-9 is hereinafter referred to as the contested OER.) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the two previous considerations of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in: * Record of Proceedings (ROP) – * Docket Number AR20110015137, Board Date: 3 November 2011 * Docket Number AR20120022140, Board Date: 1 August 2013 * The ABCMR ROPs with enclosures are submitted for review by the Board. 2. The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Army commissioned officer in the rank of captain (CPT) with an active date of rank (ADOR) of 1 February 2008. 3. Three DA Forms 67-9, prepared prior to the contested OER spanning the period 3 May 2006 through 25 January 2008, show Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) D___ S. S____ was the applicant's senior rater and rated him "Best Qualified" on all three reports. (LTC S___ was also the senior rater on the contested OER.) 4. The contested OER is a relief-for-cause OER for the period 26 January 2008 through 4 August 2008 that shows he was serving as Battalion S4, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). a. Major A___ C. M____, Executive Officer, 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry, was the rater and LTC D___ S. S____, Commander, 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry, was the senior rater. b. The significant aspects of the rater's and senior rater's assessments of the applicant with respect to his professionalism (Army Values and Leader Attributes, Skills, and Actions), performance, and potential were summarized in the ABCMR ROP, dated 3 November 2011. c. The senior rater's comments show, in pertinent part, "Unfortunately while on Environmental Leave, [applicant's] off duty behavior [on 4 August 2008] severely impacted his ability to perform his duties as the Battalion S4 and he could not return to Iraq and rejoin the unit. In the course of a domestic dispute, he demonstrated extremely poor judgment and conduct unbecoming for a U.S. Army officer. His behavior has cost him the respect of his subordinates, peers, and supervisors. As a result, I relieved him of his duties. At this time, he should not be promoted." d. The report was signed by the rater and senior rater on 9 October 2008 and 11 October 2008, respectively. 5. In his request for reconsideration to the Board, the applicant acknowledged he was placed in pre-trial confinement; however, there is no evidence that specifies the period of his pre-trial confinement. In addition, a review of his military personnel records and the incorporated evidence of record failed to reveal any evidence that he was temporarily suspended from duty as the Battalion S4 pending investigation of the incident. 6. Orders issued by Headquarters, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY, in pertinent part, show in: * General Court-Martial Order Number 1, dated 4 January 2010, the applicant was arraigned and the proceedings were terminated on 4 May 2009 when the Military Judge dismissed the charges. * General Court-Martial Order Number 11, dated 21 April 2010, the applicant pled not guilty and was found not guilty of all charges and specifications. The proceedings were terminated on 13 November 2009. * The orders also show, "All/The rights, privileges, and property of which the [applicant] has been deprived by virtue of these proceeding will be restored." 7. A further review of the applicant's military personnel records and the incorporated evidence of record failed to reveal evidence that charges were preferred against the applicant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman). This review also failed to reveal evidence of the imposition of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or any administrative action (e.g., letter of reprimand) related thereto. 8. On 7 April 2011, the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) considered the applicant's appeal of the contested OER. The OSRB determined the evidence presented did not clearly and convincingly establish that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. The board referred to "[a]n internal legal opinion that was obtained opining that while the court-martial proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was not guilty of the specific charges therein, the general comments regarding the appellant's involvement in a domestic dispute which involved poor judgment and conduct unbecoming an officer, were not undermined by the court-martial results and represent a fair assessment of the situation leading to the basis of the evaluation report." The OSRB determined the overall merits of the case did not warrant the requested relief requested. 9. On 28 January 2011, in response to the applicant's request for restoration of a previously revoked Bronze Star Medal, the Director, ABCMR, informed the applicant that his application was being returned without prejudice and without action being taken by the Board because there was no evidence that he had appealed the action to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). 10. On 1 May 2012, the Assistant Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC, verified the applicant's entitlement to the Bronze Star Medal. He noted, because the original order had been revoked, HRC, Fort Knox, KY, Permanent Orders 121-03, dated 30 April 2012, were issued authorizing award of the Bronze Star Medal. The certificate shows the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (while assigned to HHC, 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment) for meritorious service as an executive officer and logistics officer while conducting operations during OIF from 6 September 2007 to 23 November 2008. 11. On 3 November 2011, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request to remove the contested OER. [The District Court's Memorandum Opinion notes that in the ROP the Board concluded, "Counsel contends the OER is unjust, contains negative markings and comments based entirely on allegations, and should be removed because the applicant was acquitted at court-martial. However, there is evidence which shows the applicant's unbecoming conduct during a domestic dispute led to him not being able to perform his duties. Although the applicant was acquitted of charges, the fact remains that at the time the report was rendered, his senior rater objectively opined he exhibited extremely poor judgment during a domestic dispute that led to charges being preferred."] 12. Five (5) DA Forms 67-9 spanning the period 5 August 2008 through 27 July 2012, submitted in support of his request for reconsideration by the Board show: * for the OER covering the period 5 August 2008 through 31 May 2009, the applicant had 9 rated months and Non-Rated Code "Q" (Lack of Rater Qualification), which indicates there was less than 1 non-rated month * all five (different) raters evaluated his performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" * all five (different) senior raters evaluated his promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Best Qualified" 13. On 4 and 5 November 2012, the applicant's senior rater and rater for the contested OER, each submitted a memorandum in support of his request to the ABCMR for reconsideration of his request to remove the contested OER. Both the senior rater and rater acknowledged, "I would not have included negative comments on his OER had I known he was going to be acquitted at court-martial of the underlying conduct. I fully support his appeal to have this OER removed from his OMPF. Had the acquittal come before the rating period [closed], I would not have referred to the underlying misconduct." 14. On 1 August 2013, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request for reconsideration to remove the contested OER. [The District Court's Memorandum Opinion notes that in the ROP the Board concluded, "The senior rater still states that at the time the OER was written all the data was accurate … Both the rater and senior rater now support the applicant's request to remove the subject OER from his [personnel file]. They both clearly state that had they known the outcome of the court-martial they would not have mentioned the underlying misconduct that resulted in the applicant's relief for cause. However, neither rating official contends that the applicant would not still have been relieved for cause due to his inability to perform his duty."] 15. The Court found that the ABCMR failed to respond directly to the legal argument at the heart of the applicant's request for reconsideration. Specifically, "substantive inaccuracy" because the contested OER was based "solely on the allegation of which [applicant] was acquitted." Additionally, the Board's decision relied upon the two rating officials' statements that "at the time the OER was written all the data was accurate." Moreover, the Board did not consider the argument that under Army regulations neither rater should have made reference at all to the pending charges because the investigation into the matter was still ongoing. * The Court noted that in the request for reconsideration, the applicant took the position that no information could be "verified" for purposes of the regulation until after the court-martial process was complete. The Court also noted that the regulation "plainly contemplates that some information may be "verified" even before a trial on the merits has concluded, and it may then be mentioned in an evaluation." However, when the Board dismisses an argument with any substance, "it must expressly indicate that it has done so." The Board did not do so in the applicant's case with respect to the applicant's argument of "verified" information concerning the use of unproven derogatory information in the contested OER. * The rating officials' statements that "at the time the OER was written all the data was accurate" were offered as evidence that the Board did apply the regulation and made a determination that the information was "verified" for purposes of the regulation. However, the Court could not assume that the Board's repetition of the word "accurate" satisfies the regulation because the two terms are not synonymous and noted that according to the Oxford English Dictionary: * the adjective "accurate" means "exact, precise; conforming exactly with the truth or with a given standard; free from error" * the verb "verify" means "to prove by good evidence or valid testimony; to testify or affirm formally or under oath" * * The Court found the ABCMR did not overlook or ignore the rating officials' statements (submitted in support of the applicant's request for reconsideration). The Board specifically addressed the letters and rejected them, noting that notwithstanding the letters, "neither rating official contends that the applicant would not still have been relieved for cause due to his inability to perform his duty." The Court again noted it must "limit [its] inquiry to whether the Secretary's decision making process was deficient, not whether his decision was correct." 16. In connection with the processing of this case, information was obtained from HRC, The Adjutant General (TAGD), Promotions Branch, pertaining to past Fiscal Year (FY), Major (MAJ), Active Component (AC) Promotion Selection Boards (PSB) with respect to the applicant's CPT ADOR that revealed the following zones of consideration (i.e., Below the Zone (BZ), Promotion Zone (PZ), and Above the Zone (AZ)): Zone FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 AZ 29 Jan 07 and Earlier 29 Jan 08 and Earlier 29 Jan 09 and Earlier PZ 30 Jan 07–31 Jan 08 30 Jan 08–31 Jan 09 30 Jan 09–31 Jan 10 BZ 1 Feb 08–8 Mar 09 1 Feb 09–8 Mar 10 1 Feb 10–8 Mar 11 a. All of the above FY AC MAJ PSBs have adjourned. b. Based on the applicant's current ADOR of 1 February 2008, he was considered by each board (see bold for zone), but he was not selected for promotion. REFERENCES: 1. AR 623-3, Chapter 3 (Army Evaluation Principles), in effect at the time, shows in – * paragraph 3-23 * No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Solder. * References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting the evaluation to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). If the rated individual is absolved, comments about the incident will not be included in the evaluation. * This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports. It will also prevent unjustly prejudicial information from being permanently included in a Soldier's OMPF, such as – * charges that are later dropped * charges or incidents of which the rated individual may later be absolved * Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation. This is true whether the rated Soldier is under investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial. While the fact that a rated individual is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain's use of verified derogatory information. For example, when an interim report with verified information is made available to a commander, the verified information may be included in an OER, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report, or Academic Evaluation Report. For all reports, if previously reported information later proves to be incorrect or erroneous, the Soldier will be notified and advised of the right to appeal the report in accordance with Chapter 6 (Evaluation Redress Program). * paragraph 3-39 (Modification to previously submitted reports), subparagraph c, shows an exception to subparagraph b (Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored), is granted for OERs only when – * information that was unknown or unverified when the report was prepared is brought to light or verified * this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation had it been known or verified when the report was prepared * paragraph 3-40 (Newly received favorable information), if rating officials become aware of information that would have resulted in a higher evaluation of a rated Soldier, they will take action to alter or remove the report in accordance with the appeal policy stated in chapter 6 and procedures in DA Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), chapter 6. Rating officials will precisely specify the new information, how it was obtained, whether it was factually confirmed, or how it would change the evaluation had it been considered in writing the original report. Addenda will not be used to report this type of information. The rated Soldier may be provided with a statement by the rating official who discovered the new favorable information, and that statement could be used in the rated Soldier's appeal. * paragraph 3-58, an OER is required when an officer or warrant officer is relieved for cause regardless of the rating period involved. Relief for cause is defined as an early release of an officer from a specific duty or assignment directed by superior authority and based on a decision that the officer has failed in his/her performance of duty. In this regard, duty performance will consist of the completion of assigned tasks in a competent manner and compliance at all times with the accepted professional officer standards shown in DA Form 67-9, Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism). These standards will apply to conduct both on and off duty. * If, for whatever reasons, the relief does not occur on the date the officer is removed from duty positon responsibilities, the period of time between the removal and the relief will be non-rated time included in the period of the relief report. * Cases where the rated officer has been suspended from duties pending an investigation will be resolved by the chain of command as expeditiously as possible to reduce the amount of potential non-rated time involved. Every effort will be made to retain the established rating chain, with the officer performing alternate duties under that rating chain until the investigation is resolved. If the rated officer is suspended and subsequently relieved, the period of suspension is non-rated time. If the rated officer is suspended and subsequently placed back to duty (not relieved), the period of suspension is recorded as evaluated time on the next OER. * Chapter 6, paragraph 6-11 (Burden of proof and type of evidence), the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that (1) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and (2) action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions. 2. AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), chapter 7 (Appeals and Petitions) provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF. Paragraph 7-2 (Appeals for removal of OMPF entries) shows that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 3. AR 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of Army commissioned and warrant officers on the active duty list. Chapter 7 (Special Selection Boards (SSBs)), paragraph 7-2 (Purpose of boards), provides that SSBs may be convened under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628, to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when HQDA discovers the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary). DISCUSSION: 1. The review for removal of the contested OER from the applicant's OMPF based on the summary judgment granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in favor of the applicant pertaining to unproven derogatory information was carefully considered. 2. The OSRB found, "… while the court-martial proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was not guilty of the specific charges therein (emphasis added), the general comments regarding the appellant's involvement in a domestic dispute which involved poor judgment and conduct unbecoming an officer, were not undermined by the court-martial results and represent a fair assessment of the situation leading to the basis of the evaluation report." It is noted that the OSRB ROP is absent any discussion or finding with respect to the validity of the relief for cause OER (e.g., it remaining unaltered by the rating officials either administratively or substantively) in light of the new evidence (i.e., acquittal by court-martial). Instead, the OSRB invoked "administrative regularity" and determined the evidence presented did not clearly and convincingly establish that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report. 3. The initial ABCMR decision acknowledged that the applicant was acquitted of charges. However, it concluded that the report contained the rating official's objective comments. The ABCMR's reconsideration of the applicant's case cited the underlying misconduct that resulted in his relief for cause and noted that "neither rating official contends that the applicant would not still have been relieved for cause due to his inability to perform his duty." 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant was placed in pre-trial confinement as a result of an incident on 4 August 2008; however, the date(s)/ period of any pre-trial confinement is not specified. a. Following the period of the contested OER, the applicant received an OER covering the period 5 August 2008 through 31 May 2009. It shows the non-rated time (less than 30 days) was attributed to lack of rater qualification. It does not show he had non-rated time based on pre-trial confinement. b. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant's security clearance was suspended or revoked. There is also no evidence of record that shows the loss of any of his skill qualifications. c. Thus, the evidence of record is at odds with the senior rater's comment in the contested OER that "he could not (emphasis added) return to Iraq and rejoin the unit." 5. The evidence of record shows, on 13 November 2009, the applicant was acquitted of all charges against him. The court-martial decision was promulgated on 21 April 2010. a. The governing Army regulation shows "verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation." However, no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation and references will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken. This restriction is to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports. More specifically, it is to prevent unjustly prejudicial information from being permanently included in a Soldier's OMPF, such as charges that are later dropped and charges or incidents of which the rated individual may later be absolved. b. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was charged under the UCMJ, Article 133, for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, or that NJP and/or administrative action was imposed against him for such conduct. In this regard, the evidence of record fails to support the comment in the contested OER related to unbecoming conduct because there is no evidence of record that shows he was afforded due process regarding any such charge. c. The evidence of record shows that HQDA (HRC) verified the applicant's entitlement to the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service as an executive officer and logistics officer, HHC, 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, while conducting operations during OIF from 6 September 2007 to 23 November 2008. 6. The evidence of record fails to show the: * applicant was notified and advised of his right to appeal the contested OER when previously reported information later proved to be incorrect or erroneous * rating officials took action to alter or remove the contested OER in accordance with the OER appeal policy 7. The governing Army regulation shows an evaluation report in a Soldier's OMPF will be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report when: * information that was unknown or unverified when the report was prepared is brought to light or verified * this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation had it been known or verified when the report was prepared 8. The evidence of record shows that both rating officials for the contested OER have acknowledged that they would not have included negative comments on the contested OER had they known the applicant was going to be acquitted at court-martial of the underlying conduct. As such, it may be concluded that with the verified information, a higher evaluation would have resulted (i.e., the rating officials would not have included the unproven derogatory information that was included in the contested OER nor the assessments that were influenced by the unproven information). In addition, both rating officials fully support the applicant's appeal to have the contested OER removed from his OMPF. 9. In view of the all of the foregoing, it is concluded that the applicant is correct in some of his assertions with respect to the matter under review. As such, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions. In this regard, the presumption of regularity cannot be applied to the contested OER and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Accordingly, the contested OER should be removed from his OMPF. 10. The evidence of record shows that, based on the applicant's ADOR of 1 February 2008, he was eligible for consideration by the FY13 (BZ), FY14 (PZ), and FY15 (AZ) MAJ PSBs; however, he was not selected for promotion to MAJ. 11. Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, and as a matter of justice and equity, it would be appropriate in this case to correct the applicant's records. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001044 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001044 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2