BOARD DATE: 1 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007104 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 1 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007104 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 correction of his records to show that he was fit for duty instead of unfit/medically retired and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)to change is reentry eligibility (RE) code to an RE code that would allow him to. He also requests a hearing before the Board. 2. The applicant states, prior to his enlistment in the Army as a Special Forces (SF) weapons sergeant, he served in the USMC as an intelligence officer. He was medically retired in the highest grade satisfactorily held, which was the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3. Because he was retired as a CPT he does not have an RE code. Since he was medically retired from the Army as an enlisted Soldier, he would need an RE code to reenlist. a. He was medically retired for left knee osteoarthritis on 23 April 2013. In January and February 2013, prior to his medical retirement, he received permission to have surgery at the Stone Clinic in San Francisco, CA, and following the surgery, he made a complete recovery and his left knee was able to support unlimited activity. b. Since his surgery in 2013, the change in his condition was verified by his involvement in intense physical training and by multiple doctors and orthopedic surgeons, he has seen who unanimously granted him a full medical release for unlimited activity. c. He has demonstrated a significant change to his physical ability, and considering the time and money, the Government has invested in his training as an SF weapons sergeant and a USMC intelligence officer, he would like the opportunity to resume his career on active duty. The disability prompting medical retirement is no longer applicable because of surgery and two years of post- operative physical therapy. 3. The applicant provides: * Appendix A; complete medical records dated between 1995 and 2016 * Appendix B; medical records pertaining specifically to his left knee from 2011 to 2013 * Appendix C; SF physical, dated 17 March 2016 * Appendix D; Letters and progress notes from orthopedic surgeons between June 2015 and November 2015 * Appendix E; Email from senior PEB counsel, dated 4 February 2014 * Appendix F; physical evaluation board (PEB)/medical evaluation board (MEB) findings * DD Form 214, dated 22 April 2013 * Memorandum: Subject; Grade Determination [applicant] * Discharge Certificate, dated 10 February 2009 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant served in the USMC as a commissioned officer from 6 June 2004 to 1 April 2008 and was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 February 2009. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 18B (SF Weapons Sergeant). 2. In January 2012, he entered into the disability system under Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). 3. On 31 March 2012, a narrative summary (NARSUM) was completed. It stated, the service member was evaluated and treated for left knee osteoarthritis for over 12 months with no significant improvement. He was unable to perform the duties of his primary MOS and duties of a Soldier. The NARSUM physician also noted the applicant injured his knee while playing soccer in 1995 prior to his entrance in to the service, and in May 2005 during combative training his knee locked up. 4. On 2 April 2012, an MEB convened and found the following medical conditions: a. Medically unacceptable in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3-14b, left knee osteoarthritis status post-surgery. Occurred in 2005, line of duty "No." Existed prior to service "Yes." Permanently aggravated by service "Yes." b. Medically acceptable under the provisions of AR 40-501: * moderate right and left sensorineural hearing loss * tinnitus * chronic right knee strain c. On 15 April 2012, the findings and recommendations of the board were approved. However, the applicant’s signature is not on DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings). 5. On 2 January 2013, an informal PEB convened and found the applicant physically unfit for left knee osteoarthritis and rated this condition under Code 5262 of the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) at 30 percent. a. The PEB considered his other conditions (listed as conditions 2 through 4 on the MEB Proceedings). Those conditions met medical retention standards, and the case file contained no evidence that the conditions independently, or combined render the applicant unfit for his assigned duties. b. The PEB recommended a combined rating of 30 percent and that his disposition be "permanent disability retirement." c. The applicant was counseled. He concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendations and waived his right to formal hearing of his case. 6. Orders Number 031-0042, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, on 31 January 2013, placed the applicant on the permanent disability retirement list in the rank of CPT effective 22 April 2013. The orders listed his rank on the standard name line as SSG and listed the statute(s) authorizing his retirement as Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), sections 1372 and 1201. 7. He was honorably retired from active duty due to permanent disability on 22 April 2013. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 4 years, 2 months, and 12 days of net service for this period of service with 3 years, 9 months, and 28 days of prior active service for a total of 8 years and 10 days of active service. His DD Form 214 also shows: * item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – CPT and item 4b (Pay Grade) – O-3 * item 27 (RE Code) Not Applicable 8. The applicant provides: a. Appendix A, which contains his pre-military and military health records dated between 1995 and 2016. The documentation therein provides a detailed history of his knee injury, surgeries, and rehabilitation. b. Appendix B, which shows the initial diagnosis of his left knee injury in 2011 and two surgical reports providing details of surgery on his left knee in 2013. Appendix B also contains a post-operative recovery note, dated 22 July 2013 that provides details of his recovery status post left knee surgery. c. Appendix C, which contains his completed DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 24 February 2016, wherein Dr. JS, the physician that completed his SF physical, states in effect, in item 30 (Examiner’s Summary and Elaboration of all Pertinent Data), the applicant had extensive physical therapy and post-operative care. His last follow up note with Dr. S, an orthopedic surgeon, was from 25 June 2015, where it notes, the applicant achieved full range of motion, all post-operative symptoms had ceased, and his recovery was complete. Dr. S specifically notes he saw no reason why the applicant could not return to SF duty. His activities included running, cross fit, and weightlifting. He had also been road marching with a 50-pound rucksack, up to 3 miles, in preparation for returning to active duty, which had been his goal. He was able to do these things without pain or swelling in his knee. d. Appendix D, which contains the following documents: (1) A letter authored by Dr. S that states the applicant made a spectacular recovery from a left knee articular cartilage paste grafting of the lateral and medial femoral condyles in January 2013, along with procedures including a lateral meniscus replacement performed in February 2013 for an arthritic knee. His recovery was complete and he would like to return to SF active duty at the time. He saw no reason why he could not return to duty. He understood his knee was rebuilt and further care in the future may be required. He was cleared to return to all activities without restriction. (2) A letter authored by Dr. M states, as far as the applicant’s left knee was concerned, he was doing extraordinarily well. As far as activity, in his professional opinion, he had no restrictions or limitations regarding the use of his left knee and he may continue to do so in the near future. He did not see anything during examination that would preclude him from participating in all activities, as he desired. (3) Progress note authored by Dr. B state the applicant had no pain with all activities to include running, walking, and weight lifting. He had been doing well since 2013 when his meniscus was transplanted and cartilage repaired. He had a normal examination and function at the time. Chance of future injury or prognosis was difficult with progressive surgery but he had no restrictions currently and had demonstrated good function without pain in the last 2 years. e. Appendix E, which contains an email, dated 4 February 2014, from the PEB counsel advising the applicant to apply to the ABCMR to reverse his PEB findings. f. A memorandum, Subject: Grade Determination, dated 22 January 2013, showing the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency determined the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served for the purpose of computation of retired pay was CPT. The authority was Title 10, USC, section 1372 and 1201. 9. On 28 September 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) senior medical advisor reviewed the applicant's records and rendered an advisory opinion in his case. After a thorough review, the senior medical advisor opined that: a. The applicant did not meet medical retention standards for left knee osteoarthritis in accordance with chapter 3, of AR 40-501, and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to the applicant’s era of service. b. The applicant met medical retention standards for mild right and moderate left sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, chronic right knee strain, visual acuity (astigmatism/refractive error-hypermetropia), skin conditions, abnormal electrocardiogram (EKG) (with normal echo and GXT evaluations), history of right elbow bursitis, history of back pain, and other physical, medical and/or behavioral conditions in accordance with chapter 3, of AR 40-501, and following the provisions in AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant’s era of service. c. The applicant’s medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition, which would support a change to the character, reason, disability determination, or disability rating for the discharge in this case. d. The applicant requested retraction or reversal of the permanent disability retirement to permit application or consideration for reenlistment. The applicant underwent surgical treatment of his left knee after MEB/PEB processing but before separation from active duty. At the time of his actual separation, post- operatively, the applicant did not meet medical retention standards for his left knee condition. The applicant’s permanent disability retirement was appropriate. e. Two plus years after separation and permanent disability retirement it appears the applicant’s left knee had healed and rehabilitated very well with his treating and examining providers noting "no restrictions on activities" involving his left knee and shoulder and the applicant reports engaging in various physical activities. Also in 2015, two years post operatively; the applicant was still reported as having occasional exacerbations of left knee symptoms and swelling when physical activity/exertion was increased significantly. The applicant’s postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrates stability of the surgical repairs but also suggest continued progression of degenerative changes affecting the left knee. f. If the applicant were still on active duty, he probably would meet retention standards for his left knee. The applicant has been medically retired for four plus years. He does not meet medical accession standards and he would require medical waivers, if approved, for accession per the following provisions of AR 40-501: (1) paragraph 2-10(c)(5) states current unspecified internal derangement of the knee does not meet the standard, (2) paragraph 2-11(a), states current or history of chondromalacia, including, but not limited to chronic patello-femoral pain syndrome and retro- patellar pain syndrome, chronic osteoarthritis or traumatic arthritis does not meet the standard, and (3) paragraph 2-11(a)(c), states current or history of chronic osteoarthritis or traumatic arthritis of isolated joints of more than a minimal degree that has interfered with the following of a physically active vocation in civilian life, or that prevents the satisfactory performance of military duty does not meet the standard. g. In summary, based on the history of left knee injuries and multiple surgeries which occurred from 1995 through 2013, with continued radiographic evidence and post-exertional (more than usual) history of symptom or effusion exacerbation (as of 2015) the applicant is not a good candidate for reenlistment. He does not recommend reversing the applicant’s permanent disability retirement for applying for possible military reenlistment. 10. On 16 October 2017, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the advisory opinion, which states: a. It seems obvious no thought was given to the considerable investment that has been made into his development as a USMC intelligence officer and SF noncommissioned officer. It had been estimated that more than $850,000 had been spent on his training and development, focused on leading, and training Soldiers and operating in the unstructured, fluid environment of U.S. Special Operations. b. The advisory opinion states, "if the applicant was still on active duty, he probably would meet retention standards for his left knee. The applicant has been retired for four plus years. He does not meet medical accession standards. the applicant knows he meets retention standards. Multiple orthopedic and military doctors had confirmed this. Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. S, stated in notes provided to the ABCMR, "his recovery was complete and he would like to return to Special Operations active duty at this time. He saw no reason why he could not return to duty. He understood his knee was rebuilt and that further care in the future may be required. He was cleared to return to all activities without restriction." Dr. JS, who completed DD Form 2807-1 and DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) he submitted with his request states, "as a physician working with Naval Special Warfare, he evaluated the applicant in order for him to have a current physical exam that succinctly documented his extensive medical history. Given the investment the Army has in him and given his recovery from the condition that led to his medical retirement, it was his professional opinion that the ABCMR should consider overturning his medical retirement and allowing him to return to active duty." These doctors clearly believe he is capable of returning to duty and that he meets accession standards. c. It has been four years since he was retired and following surgery he had a two-year recovery where he focused on training and rehabilitating his knee. It took him that long to see the results of the corrective procedure and to be able to return to running and full activity confidently. Once it became evident, he was able to return to full activity he then began seeking medical examinations that would enable him to appeal his medical retirement. d. He contacted 4th Force Reconnaissance, USMC in Alameda, CA, and they have expressed their desire to accept him as a member of the unit if he was able to resolve his request for a reenlistment code. He has also contacted A Company, 5th Battalion, 19th SF Group (Airborne), Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, CA. They also expressed willingness and desire to accept him as part of their unit. These units understood the level of training and experience he has, and they are seeking Soldiers with his level of operational experience. He knows he can support them if given the opportunity. REFERENCES: 1. AR 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement. Chapter 3 of the regulation gives the various medical conditions and physical defects, which may render a Soldier, unfit for further military service. 2. AR 635-40 sets for the policies for the disposition of Soldiers found unfit because of physical disability reasonably to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating. The regulation states: a. The disability evaluation system assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and the PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member’s injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retirement payments and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. b. Paragraph 3-1 that the mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. c. Paragraph 3-2b (processing for separation or retirement from active duty) disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired due to service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. When a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the Soldier is fit. The presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that— (1) The Soldier was, in fact, physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating for a period of time because of disability. There must be a causative relationship between the less than adequate duty performance and the unfitting medical condition or conditions. (2) An acute, grave illness or injury or other significant deterioration of the Soldier’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to, or coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability and which rendered the Soldier unfit for further duty. 3. Title 10, USC, section 1372 (effective 4 January 1995), states unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, any member of an Armed Force who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 of this title, is entitled to the grade equivalent to the highest of the following: a. The grade or rank in which he or she is serving on the date when his or her name is placed on the TDRL or, if his or her name was not carried on that list, on the date when he or she is retired. b. The highest temporary grade or rank in which he or she served satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Armed Force from which he or she is retired. 4. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) states in the preparation of DD Form 214 RE code; AR 601–210 (Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) determines RA and U.S. Army Reserve reentry eligibility and provides regulatory guidance on the RE codes. These codes are not applicable to officers. 5. VASRD 5262 pertains to tibia and fibula, impairment of: * 40 percent is assigned when there is nonunion of, with loose motion, requiring a brace * 30 percent is assigned when there is marked knee or ankle disability * 20 percent is assigned when there is moderate knee or ankle disability * 10 percent is assigned when there is slight knee or ankle disability 6. AR 601-210 (Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) states the following: a. Paragraph 3-18(2)(a), disqualification of applicants due to previous characterization of separation. Inform applicant that an RE code is not upgraded unless it was administratively incorrect when originally issued. b. Paragraph 3-20, the following RE codes are used for administrative purposes only: * RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army; they are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable; they are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted * RE-4 applies to persons separated from last period of service with a non-waiverable qualification c. Paragraph 3-22(a), the RA enlistment eligibility will be based on last discharge or separation. If the last period of service was in a Reserve Component (RC) qualification will be based on that separation/discharge. d. Paragraph 4-23, the following are nonwaiverable separations and/or discharges: * Physically disqualified * Military Personnel Security Program * Release from entry on AD by reason of physical disability and reversion to inactive status for the purpose of retirement under Title 10, United States Code, sections 12731 through 12738, instead of discharge with entitlement to receive disability retirement pay * Physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or willful neglect, or incurred during period of unauthorized absence * Desertion or dropped from rolls. * Permanently retired by reason of physical disability 7. AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (statutory or other directives), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on DD Form 214. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. 8. All Army Activity (ALARACT) Message 147/2008 implemented new SPD codes for the DES Pilot Program. It directed the implementation of the SPD code "SEJ" Disability, Permanent (Enhanced) under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 4. 9. AR 15-185 states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice require. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests a reversal of his medical retirement. The applicant served on active duty in an enlisted status from 11 February 2009 to 22 April 2013. The evidence of record shows he injured his left knee in 1995 prior to entering active duty. He reinjured his left knee during combative training in May 2005 and had subsequent surgery to repair his injured left knee. He had persistent knee pain that was evaluated and he was ultimately found to have osteoarthritis and entered into the disability evaluation system. a. An MEB listed all his medical conditions and found the only condition that failed retention standards was his osteoarthritis. The MEB referred him to a PEB. The PEB found this condition unfitting, per the DES Pilot Program, requested, and obtained a proposed rating from the VA. The VA rated this condition at 30 percent at the time. b. The evidence shows both the MEB and the PEB were convened to evaluate his unfitting condition in accordance with applicable regulations at the time. The applicant was counseled and concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendations. He ultimately medically retired from the service with a combined disability rating of 30 percent. c. It is clear the applicant did not meet medical retention standards for left knee osteoarthritis in accordance with chapter 3, of AR 40-501, and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant’s era of service. d. The applicant met medical retention standards for mild right and moderate left sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, chronic right knee strain, visual acuity (astigmatism/refractive error-hypermetropia), skin conditions, abnormal EKG (with normal echo and GXT evaluations), history of right elbow bursitis, history of back pain, and other physical, medical and/or behavioral conditions in accordance with chapter 3, of AR 40-501, and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant’s era of service. e. The applicant’s medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the reason, disability determination, or disability rating for the discharge in this case. f. The applicant underwent surgical treatment of his left knee after MEB/PEB processing but before separation from active duty. At the time of his actual separation, post-operatively, the applicant did not meet medical retention standards for his left knee condition. The applicant’s permanent disability retirement was appropriate. g. Two plus years after separation and permanent disability retirement it appears the applicant’s left knee has healed and rehabilitated very well with his treating and examining providers noting "no restrictions on activities" involving his left knee and shoulder and the applicant reports engaging in various physical activities. Also in 2015, two years post operatively; the applicant was still reported as having occasional exacerbations of left knee symptoms and swelling when physical activity/exertion was increased significantly. The applicant’s postoperative MRI demonstrates stability of the surgical repairs but also suggest continued progression of degenerative changes affecting the left knee. h. If the applicant were still on active duty, he probably would meet retention standards for his left knee. The applicant has been medically retired for four plus years. He does not meet medical accession standards and would require medical waivers, if approved, for accession per AR 40-501, chapter: 2-10(c)(5) current unspecified internal derangement of the knee does not meet the standard, chapter 2-11(a), current or history of chondromalacia, including, but not limited to chronic patello-femoral pain syndrome and retro-patellar pain syndrome, chronic osteoarthritis or traumatic arthritis does not meet the standard, and chapter 2-11(a)(c), current or history of chronic osteoarthritis or traumatic arthritis of isolated joints of more than a minimal degree that has interfered with the following of a physically active vocation in civilian life, or that prevents the satisfactory performance of military duty does not meet the standard. i. Based on the history of left knee injuries and multiple surgeries (1995 thru 2013) with continued radiographic evidence and post-exertional (more than usual) history of symptom or effusion exacerbation (as of 2015). 2. A person granted retired pay will receive such pay in the highest grade satisfactorily held by him or her during his or her entire period of service. In the applicant’s case, his DD Form 214 erroneously listed his rank/grade as CPT/O-3 at the time of retirement. He did not hold this rank/grade when he was separated. He held the rank/grade of staff sergeant/E-6. 3. The applicant's DD Form 214 incorrectly lists his rank as CPT/O-3 instead of SSG/E-6. He did not receive an RE code because regulatory guidance does not authorize the entry of Re codes for commissioned officers. However, even if his DD Form 214 had listed his correct rank/grade, his RE Code would have been RE-4, which is consistent with the narrative reason for his separation. 4. An applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 5. The Board must determine whether the applicant's retirement should be overturned. Overturning the applicant's retirement would require the correction of his DD Form 214 to show his rank to SSG/E-6 and the correction of his RE code from RE-4 to RE-3. BOARD DATE: 1 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007104 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 referring his medical records (including the records he submitted with his application to this Board) to the Army’s enlistment medical waiver authority for review. a. If a determination is made that a waiver allowing the applicant to enlist is approved, the case should be referred to the appropriate office of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command to contact the applicant and initiate further enlistment processing. b. If a determination is made that a waiver allowing the applicant to enlist is disapproved, the case should be referred back to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for further review. 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 any relief without benefit of the review described above. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007104 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007104 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2