BOARD DATE: 7 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009803 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x_____ ___x_____ __x______ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 7 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009803 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 reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 11 October 1973 to show the characterization of his service as "under honorable conditions (general)." 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting his DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 October 1973 to show the characterization of his service as "honorable." ___________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 7 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009803 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 that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. He was redeployed from the Republic of Vietnam because he was deranged and paranoid. That was a time when very little was known about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the effects that war had on many young men. He volunteered to serve his country, which he wanted to do. b. According to his chapter 10 paperwork, he was out of control throughout his tour. However, if the Board would look at his record, the Board will see that prior to his first tour in Vietnam, he was a good Soldier. He was promoted early with waivers, which were only given to the top Soldiers in his unit. According to his discharge paperwork, his performance was unsatisfactory in December 1969, yet he was promoted to specialist (SPC)/E-4 one month later in January 1970. c. The Board should consider his mental condition when he was sent out of the country alone, when he was too mentally deranged to know where he was or what he was supposed to do. He was mentally ill and his mind was gone. d. His whole life was altered by his tour in Vietnam. He is suffering from PTSD, diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and he had to have his toes cut-off. All of the conditions are presumptive conditions to Agent Orange. He suffered from PTSD since leaving Vietnam. He was never able to get treatment until a social worker took interest in his case when he/she learned he was a Vietnam veteran. He is now receiving counseling for PTSD and treatment for presumptive Agent Orange conditions. e. He understands that what he did was wrong; however, he knows he would never do what he did consciously. He regrets what he did but he was not in control in that state of mind. He is sorry and he suffered his whole life for it. He relived the events with a vague memory and he knows he would have never done what he did. He just wanted to do his time and resume his education and studies in music. 3. The applicant provides: * a self-authored statement * an extract of a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 3 August 1973 * DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 13 August 1973 * Fort Bragg (FB) Form 2408 (Checklist for Screening Records), dated 5 September 1973 * separation documents * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services letter, dated 13 February 2009 * North Carolina Department of Correction Consultation/Referral Form, dated 14 November 2010 * Triumph outpatient letter, dated 29 March 2011 * a witness statement from his cousin, dated 3 December 2015 * RCSnet Client Information Record pages 1- 8 of 17, dated 10 April 2016 * a letter from a licensed psychologist, dated 10 May 2016 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's military personnel and medical records are not available for review. A complete and thorough search was conducted; however, his records could not be located. This case is being considered based on the documents he provided. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 November 1968. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Truck Master). 4. An extract of a DA Form 458, dated 3 August 1973, shows he was recommended for trial by court-martial; however, it does not show what Article(s) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) he was charged with violating. 5. A DA Form 3822-R, dated 13 August 1973, shows he received a mental status evaluation. The medical examiner noted the following: * he had no significant mental illness * he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the ability to adhere to the right * he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings * he met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) 6. An FB Form 2408, dated 5 September 1973, shows: a. the applicant was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) during the following periods: * 15 May 1970 – 16 June 1970 (33 days) * 25 June 1970 – 28 June 1970 (4 days) * 16 July 1970 – 4 August 1970 (20 days) * 24 September 1970 – 1 January 1971 (100 days) * 9 February 1972 – 31 July 1973 (539 days) b. the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on: * 12 November 1971, for sleeping on post * 10 December 1971, for misconduct, he was reduced to private/E-2 c. the applicant was convicted by special court-martial on: * 18 September 1970, for violating Article 128 of the UCMJ; assault * 2 March 1971, for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ; AWOL from 24 September 1970 through 2 January 1971 d. the applicant was confined during the following periods: * 5 August 1970 – 21 September 1970 (48 days) * 2 January 1971 – 2 March 1971 (60 days) e. the applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam during the following periods: * from 11 April 1969 through 30 March 1970 * from 6 August 1971 through 8 February 1972 7. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 23 August 1973 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. 8. In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions. He indicated he had been advised of the possible effect of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and understood that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He did not submit any statements in his own behalf. 9. The general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) approved the applicant's request on 27 September 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged under other than honorable conditions (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). 10. The applicant was discharged on 11 October 1973. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and his character of service was under other than honorable conditions. He served on active duty for 2 years, 10 months, and 10 days, with a total 762 days of lost time. 11. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. The applicant provides: a. A self-authored statement: (1) He went out on a few missions with the 101st Airborne Division; it was horrific. He drove outside of the base and came under attacks and ambushes. He always feared that any day it would be him. (2) He didn't know anything about shell shock, PTSD, or anything like that but he was not the same when he returned from Vietnam. It was like he was gone and had been replaced. He could not handle any kind of stress, pressure, or authority. He was completely out of control. He could not sleep and the only time he could sleep was when he was stoned out of his mind. (3) He kept reliving seeing his buddies die in Vietnam; the attacks, loud dreadful blasts from rockets and mortar attacks. The least bit of noise startled him and sent his mind right back into the jungles of Vietnam. He could not stand being around anybody, not even his family whom he loved dearly. Even seeing children would send his mind back to the horror of seeing poor children and their fate in Vietnam. (4) He became isolated because he didn't want anyone to see him. He could not live with himself; many times he wished he had died in Vietnam. He died in Vietnam and many days wished he had come home in a box with a flag, with dignity. He is haunted to this day. The worst part about it was that he was not in control of his own life. (5) After returning from Vietnam, his mind was just gone. He did not report to his duty station. After a few months, he signed in at Fort Dix, NJ, where he was charged for AWOL. Nothing mattered in his state of mind. He got into a fight and was court-martialed. He was called a racially charged derogatory word when he met his first sergeant at his next duty location; this made him worse. He had a hard time at Fort Stewart, GA, so he volunteered to go back to the Vietnam. His logic was that he got into trouble when he returned to the States, so maybe if he went back to Vietnam, he could resume his career. Little did he know, he was still suffering from the effects of his first tour in Vietnam. (6) After returning to Vietnam, he was working as a security guard. The NJPs and court-martials made the second tour a disaster. His command determined he was deranged and rushed him out of the country; they put him on a plane to New York with only the clothes on his back. He was so mentally messed up that he could not comprehend anything. He called his cousin, who picked him up at the airport. According to her, he sat in a dark room and did not go outside for anything. She said he woke up at nights screaming "They are trying to kill me." (7) He tried to sign in to Fort Hamilton, NY, but they did not have any records of him being in the service. He stayed with his cousin in New York until he started getting back to himself; he received coaching from his cousin. He went back to Fort Bragg, NC, after about a year and a half, to turn himself in; most of the events are hazy and his memory is not good. (8) The command at Fort Bragg, NC, charged him with being AWOL for all the time in New York; however, his command in Vietnam knew he was sick when they sent him to New York. He did not go AWOL; they sent him away without any instructions. b. A North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services letter, dated 13 February 2009. The document has a signature block; however, it was not signed. It shows the applicant reported he was previously diagnosed with PTSD, and that he took a less than honorable discharge after he was accused of robbing someone; he took the discharge instead of going to jail for 10 years. c. A North Carolina Department of Correction Consultation/Referral Form, dated 14 November 2010, which shows he had a diabetic concern while incarcerated. d. A Triumph letter from an outpatient therapist, dated 29 March 2011, which shows he requested that his therapist write him a letter in reference to the treatment he received at the facility. The therapist noted he was being seen for PTSD. He was scheduled for weekly sessions. e. A letter from his cousin, dated and notarized on 3 December 2015. His cousin states she picked him up at a NY airport when he returned from Vietnam. She noticed the behavioral changes in him and felt very sad for him. f. An extract of an RCSnet Client Information Record, dated 10 April 2016. The information record shows he reported multiple medical conditions and incidents that occurred while he was in the military. (1) He reported he was being harassed and hit by drill sergeants in basic training, being forced to fight other trainees, and being treated for a concussion. He served two tours in Vietnam, where he remembers being assaulted while in the custody of military police for not reporting to base on time. The incident resulted in a severe head trauma and a broken arm. (2) He had significant exposure to enemy small arms fire, rockets, and mortars, as well as friendly fire. He reported details where he had to retrieve the remains of Soldiers and place them in body bags. He was detailed at a morgue where he had to match remains to their dog tags and other belongings. (3) He recalls being in the hospital next to a Soldier who was suffering from white phosphorus burns. The screams and begging to die stills haunts him till this day. After that incident, he just wanted to make it stop, and get away. g. A letter from a licensed psychologist, dated 10 May 2016, which shows he was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic, severe. 13. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 9 January 2017, from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor/Psychologist. The advisory official noted and opined: a. His records at the time of discharge do not reasonably support him having a boardable medical condition for that period. He met retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). b. Available case material supports the existence of a mitigating mental health condition. Based on available behavioral-health evidence, there is reason to mitigate his AWOLs on behavioral-health grounds based on possible PTSD. The Secretary of Defense’s policy of Liberal Guidance for PTSD allows a presumption that PTSD existed in the applicant at the time of his misconduct. Based on available evidence, his AWOLs could be mitigated. He believed available evidence sufficient to mitigate being asleep on post in Vietnam or any assaults. In thinking about the applicant’s case, Dr. P____’s diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder should be kept in mind. None of the applicant’s misconduct would be unusual in a person with an Antisocial Personality Disorder. The disorder can co-occur with PTSD, as the one diagnosis does not exclude the other. c. A review of available documentation did find evidence of mental-health considerations that are supportive of a change to the character of the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct (AWOL) and his mental-health was discovered. 14. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion on 9 January 2017, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. However, he did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. 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. c. Chapter 10, of the regulation in effect at the time, provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request for discharge may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges have been preferred. Although the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge, an undesirable (under other than honorable conditions) discharge will normally be furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the Service. 2. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an 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." 3. 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. 4. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) 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 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. (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. (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. (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). (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 (6) Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one 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. 5. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 Soldier's 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 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. 6. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider 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 applicant's service. 7. 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? 8. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. a. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service. b. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of 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. c. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence provided shows the applicant served two tours in Vietnam. Medical records he provided show that after he was discharged, he reported several head injuries, trauma and stress resulting from enemy contact, and seeing the remains of civilians, friendly and enemy forces. 2. The applicant contends his mental health problems caused him to go AWOL. His record is absent evidence of any indiscipline prior to or during his first tour in Vietnam. The evidence of record confirms he went AWOL and committed other forms of misconduct after returning from Vietnam. 3. The applicant's complete Charge Sheet is not available for review. However, the applicant was charged with the commission of serious offenses that were punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with counsel, he elected discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Discharges under this regulatory provision are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. The applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no indication his request was made under coercion or duress. His discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. 5. An ARBA advisory opinion concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support his contention of mental-health considerations that are supportive of a change to the character of the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental-health was discovered. 6. An honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. An under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service is appropriate for those Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016310 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160009803 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2