DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 SAMR-RB 27 September 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20160013772 1 . Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 07 September 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions. I direct no further correction be made to the record of the individual concerned. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 29 January 2018. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Lµ-,µ,ltC .t,P.uk_ Encl ){ Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 7 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013772 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ __x______ _x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 7 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013772 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100007944 on 10 August 2010. ___________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: AR20160013772 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 reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision as promulgated in Docket Number AR20100007944 on 10 August 2010. Specifically, he requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. His wife left him during the time in question and he was struggling to take care of his son. He was an Army recruiter at that time, working long hours. To add to his stress, his mother became very sick. She was helping him take care of his son; she passed away the following year. He was dealing with severe anger and depression due to his Vietnam combat service. PTSD was not a thing and Vietnam veterans never received any kind of debriefing or anything else. He really didn't know where all his anger was coming from and he acted out. b. Recently a friend told him there was new guidance and considerations for veterans with PTSD. 3. The applicant provides a State of North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs application letter, dated 27 July 2016, and the following documents, arranged chronologically: * Airborne Course Diploma, which shows he completed airborne training on 27 November 1969 * Pathfinder Course Diploma, which shows he completed pathfinder training on 5 February 1970 * Certificates of Achievement, dated 31 March 1976, 22 July 1977, 22 February 1980, and 6 August 1980 * a Letter of Appreciation, dated 9 June 1978 * Army Recruiting Course Diploma, dated 1 May 1979 * an undated Certificate of Training for "Creative Selling" * Area Commander's Award for Top Recruiter of the Month, dated 12 December 1979 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 29 September 1982 * Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) rating decision, dating 18 June 2010 * five character witness statements CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20100007944 on 10 August 2010. 2. The applicant provides new evidence in the form of documentation listed above, and a new argument, which were not considered by the Board in its initial consideration of his case. Therefore, this new evidence and argument warrant consideration. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 18 June 1969. He completed his initial entry training (IET) at Fort McClellan, AL and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). 4. The applicant's record shows he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) while in IET. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 30 September 1969, shows he received an Article 15 for violation of Article 91 of the UCMJ; specifically, for communicating a threat to his platoon sergeant on or about 19 September 1969. 5. The applicant was reassigned to Fort Benning, GA for training. He completed the Airborne Course on 27 November 1969 and was awarded special qualification identifier (SQI) "P" (Parachutist). 6. The applicant completed the Pathfinder Course at Fort Benning, GA on 5 February 1970. He received NJP during the Pathfinder Course. A DA Form 2627, dated 13 January 1970, shows he received an Article 15 for violation of Article 91 under the UCMJ; specifically, for disobeying a lawful order on or about 3 January 1970. 7. The applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam from on or about 4 March 1970 through on or about 23 January 1971. On 23 January 1971, he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training). 8. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 25 February 1974. After attending a second period of IET, he was awarded MOS 12B (Combat Engineer). 9. The applicant was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant on 29 December 1978. He completed the U.S. Army Recruiting Course on 1 May 1979. His record shows he remained on recruiting duty through on or about 21 June 1981. While on recruiting duty, he completed the Creative Selling Course, received an Area Commander's Award in support of the command's recruiting mission, and received Certificates of Achievement for earning the Gold Star Recruiting Badges (one and two stars). There is no record of indiscipline within his record while he was a recruiter. 10. The applicant was reassigned to Fort Bragg, NC on or about 29 July 1981, where he was assigned to Company C, 2nd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division as an 11B Squad Leader. 11. Orders 101-38, issued by Headquarters, 82nd Airborne Division on 25 May 1982, show the applicant's airborne status was terminated as the result of being a deliberate airborne terminee. The "P" SQI was withdrawn from his MOS and he was removed from parachutist duties. 12. Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, issued by Headquarters, 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division on 1 September 1982, shows the applicant was convicted of the following charges: a. Charge 1 – violating Article 90 of the UCMJ; specifically, for two specifications of disobeying a lawful order on or about 24 May 1982 and 25 May 1982, respectively; and b. Charge 3 – violating Article 86 of the UCMJ; specifically, for two specifications of failure to repair on or about 4 June 1982 and 7 June 1982, respectively. 13. The applicant was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of sergeant/E-5; and to forfeit $125.00 pay per month for four months. The sentence was adjudged on 15 July 1982. The sentence was approved and ordered executed. 14. The applicant's complete discharge packet is not available for review. It appears he was charged with additional violations of the UCMJ; however, the specific offense(s) for which he was charged for is (are) not known at this time. 15. In a self-authored statement, provided by the applicant in his original case, he provided the following details related to the circumstances that preceded his discharge: a. He requested a transfer to Fort Bragg, NC, where his mother would assist him with taking care of his son. His mother had a heart attack during the process; however, his assignment to Fort Bragg, NC was approved. He informed his new unit that he was temporarily the sole care provider for his son and was told that was not a problem. b. Problems began with deployment and training exercises. He had to leave his son with a neighbor during the absences. His son got sick several times, and he was called to come back from field exercises. His platoon leader, a lieutenant, started making comments and gestures like "Your kid is causing you problems." c. He was called out and had to take his son to the hospital because he had a 104 degree fever. His son was bitten by a spider, the wound was lanced because of a large pocket of infection, and he required intravenous (IV) fluids and a three-day stay. He could not leave his son; he called and updated his platoon daily. d. Upon his son's release, he went back to his unit and had words with a lieutenant because of his previous comments. There was never any physical contact between them but the verbal exchange resulted in the lieutenant recommending him for court-martial charges, with the possibility of jail time if convicted. His only option was to take a [chapter 10] discharge, which he did. No one in his chain of command tried to help or resolve the problem. 16. The applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. It is unclear whether or not he consulted with counsel prior to making his request. 17. The applicant's commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial on 1 September 1982; he further recommended the applicant be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The request was also endorsed for approval by the brigade commander on 1 September 1982. 18. The separation approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 14 September 1982 and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and receive an under other than honorable discharge. 19. The applicant was discharged on 29 September 1982. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for conduct triable by court-martial and his character of service was classified as "under conditions other than honorable." 20. There is no evidence within the applicant's personnel and medical records that show he suffered from, reported, or was treated for PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms. 21. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 22. The applicant provides: a. A VA Rating Decision, dated 18 June 2010. The VA rating shows he reported PTSD symptoms to a VA medical examiner. The examiner noted he there was no record he received any treatment for complaints regarding anxiety or PTSD. However, the medical examiner noticed he received the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) during service in Vietnam on his DD Form 214; therefore, a stressor to PTSD was conceded. He was awarded a 70% service-connected rating for PTSD. b. Five character witness statements from people who attest to his strong support for the Army and the Nation, and his continued devotion to his family, friends, and the community. 23. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 13 January 2017 from an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Psychiatrist. The advisory official noted and opined: a. The applicant's military records are void of documentation of any PTSD symptoms or diagnosis. His records are also void of documentation of any other behavioral-health (BH) conditions. There is no evidence that the applicant failed to meet retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). b. The lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in the applicant's military record does not necessarily indicate the applicant did not suffer from PTSD. PTSD was often not recognized during his era of service. Oftentimes, in these case, the presence of PTSD has to be inferred from behavioral indicators. Such is the case with him. It is clear from reviewing the military records that the applicant had a history of good service. c. Based on review of his military records, his verbal altercation with his platoon leader and subsequent refusal to follow orders seems to be out of character for the applicant. This finding supports the diagnosis of PTSD. This history of engaging in verbal altercations with a superior commissioned officer and failing to follow orders is not unusual in Soldiers with PTSD. Due to the anger issues associated with PTSD, Soldiers with PTSD typically have difficulty with authority figures and tend to rebel against their orders. d. Therefore, it is the medical opinion of the Agency's psychiatrist that he had a mitigating BH condition (PTSD) for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. PTSD is often associated with anger issues involving authority figures. As such, there is a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and his misconduct. 24. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 16 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. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 9. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant received NJP on two occasions prior to serving in Vietnam. Upon successful completion of his tour in Vietnam in 1971, he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR. He reenlisted in the Regular Army in 1974 and achieved the rank of SSG in 1978. 3. The applicant completed the Army Recruiting Course in 1979 and received numerous accolades while on recruiting duty. There is no evidence of any misconduct within his record for a period of 11 years after he completed his tour in Vietnam. 4. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial adjudged on 15 July 1982. He was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of sergeant/E-5 and to forfeit $125.00 pay per month for four months. The sentence was approved and fully executed; a discharge from the service was not part of his sentence. 5. Subsequent to the special court-martial, he was charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. In his own statement, he elected discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid serving jail-time (the specific charge is not available). Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. By requesting the chapter 10 discharge, he admitted he was guilty of the charge(s). 6. In the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed that the applicant's discharge proceedings for misconduct were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. The characterization of the applicant's service was commensurate with the reason for discharge. 7. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he suffers from PTSD. In support of his contention, he provides a VA service-connected rating, dated 18 June 2010, which shows he received a 70% service-connected disability rating for PTSD. The VA document specified there was no evidence; however, the VA conceded the PTSD claim since he was awarded a CIB during service in Vietnam. 8. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DoD. However, both the medical community and DoD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. 9. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 10. The applicant's record is void evidence he reported or was treated for any PTSD or behavioral-health symptoms prior to his discharge. In addition, he made no mention of any behavioral-health symptoms in his statement to the ABCMR in ABCMR Docket Number AR20100007944. His statement described a premeditated act of misconduct, in which he stated that he went back to his unit to have words with a lieutenant. This exchange with the lieutenant appears to have led to his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. 11. After a review of his limited medical records and the VA's diagnosis, the Agency's psychiatrist opined that there is a nexus between PTSD and the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge, and PTSD mitigated his misconduct that led to his discharge. 12. The lack of discharge documents makes it difficult to know the exact violation(s) for which the applicant was charged, and for which he ultimately requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The severity of the UCMJ violations cannot be determined. 13. 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) AR20160013772 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2