BOARD DATE: 28 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000373 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Upgrade of his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions to honorable * Permission to personally appear before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for Army Discharge Review Board) * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he is now 83 years old; in 1952, he volunteered for the Army and took basic combat training in El Paso, TX. After this, he was sent to Korea, where he served until February 1954 in an anti-aircraft battalion; he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal with three bronze service stars, and the United Nations Service Medal. Upon completing his tour in Korea, he transferred to Fort Sheridan, IL. a. One night he went to a bar in. He ended up drinking too much, and, after leaving the bar, he stumbled onto to someone's lawn; they called the police. The police charged him with "J-walking" and put him in jail for 3 days; however, the police failed to inform the applicant's unit of his status, so he was reported as absent without leave (AWOL). The applicant was later court-martialed and told to serve 6 months in jail; his unit then gave him an undesirable discharge, and he left the Army in 1955. b. Knowing the times and the history of our country during the 1950s, the applicant truly feels he was treated unfairly; more than anything, he wants to be able to tell his wife, children, and grandchildren that he served his country honorably during a time of war. He has been an upstanding citizen for the past 62 years. 3. The applicant's complete military records are not available for review. A fire in 1973 destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). The Army personnel records affected dated between November 1912 and January 1960. It is believed his records were lost or destroyed in that fire. NPRC was able to provide a reconstructed service record, which includes his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), as well as documents from his separation packet. 4. The applicant's reconstructed service records show: a. On 16 January 1952, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; he was 19 years old. Effective 16 May 1952, while participating in initial training at Fort Bliss, TX, the applicant's chain of command promoted him to private (PV2)/E-2. b. On 28 May 1952, the applicant signed a statement in which he affirmed, on 3 or 4 occasions, he had gone to a woman's house, looked into her window, and watched her undress. On the night of 25 May 1952, as he was watching the woman undress, he saw a car was coming, so he started walking down the road; he did not recall trying to enter the woman's home from the back door. The military police apprehended him and he admitted to what he had been doing; a military doctor subsequently referred the applicant to Mental Hygiene for a psychiatric evaluation. c. On 10 June 1952, a Medical Service Corps (MSC) officer prepared a psychological consultation; after conducting two psychological tests, the MSC officer opined the applicant had some type of thinking disorder, quite possibly simple schizophrenia. d. On 16 June 1952, a doctor evaluated the applicant and noted the following: (1) The applicant acknowledged watching the woman undressing on several occasions; while he knew his behavior was wrong, he could not stop himself. The applicant maintained he had never behaved this way at home because he was always able to have normal relations with the women he knew. (2) Up to that point, the applicant's Army record had been good; he was an acting Corporal and an acting instructor for one of the weapons systems (the doctor noted that, despite the applicant's acting positions, the applicant's chain of command had nonetheless rated his conduct as "very poor" and efficiency as "satisfactory"). (3) The doctor opined the applicant was "somewhat emotionally immature," and that he had a tendency to be in "poor contact with reality at times." While there was some evidence the applicant had a tendency toward a thinking disorder, there were no signs of any crippling or severe mental derangement. The doctor recommended retaining the applicant in the service, but, should the applicant exhibit more of the same type of conduct in the future, the applicant's leadership should consider a reevaluation. e. Upon completion of initial training, orders assigned the applicant to Korea, and he arrived on 25 October 1952; his initial unit of assignment was the 30th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion (Semi-Mobile). f. On 2 January 1953, contrary to the applicant's pleas, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations. (1) The court found the applicant guilty of disobeying the order of a sergeant first class (SFC) to go to the rear of a mess line and for treating the SFC with contempt by using disrespectful language (the applicant told the SFC he would throw him out of the mess hall). The court sentenced the applicant to restriction for 1 month and to forfeit $30 per month for 6 months. (2) On 7 January 1953, the special court-martial convening authority approved the court's sentence and directed its execution. On 10 February 1953, Special Court- Martial Order Number 13 set aside that portion of the applicant's sentence that exceeded restriction for 1 month and forfeiture of $30 for 1 month. g. On 23 February 1953, despite the applicant's not guilty plea, a special court- martial convicted the applicant of wrongfully absenting himself from bed check; the court sentenced him to 1-month's restriction and forfeiture of $50 per month for 1 month. On 2 March 1953, the special court-martial convening authority approved the court's sentence and directed its execution. On 9 March 1953, Special Court-Martial Order Number remitted the unexecuted portion of the applicant's restriction. h. On 10 March 1953, the applicant moved to the 68th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion (90 millimeter (mm)). On 3 September 1953, contrary to the applicant's plea, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of willfully disobeying the order of a master sergeant to remain in the barracks. The court sentenced the applicant to 6 months confinement and a forfeiture of $60 per month for 6 months. On 5 September 1953, the special court-martial convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for hard labor without confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of $60 per month for 6 months. On 21 September 1953, Special Court-Martial Order Number set aside so much of the applicant's sentence as pertained to forfeitures in excess of $55 per month for 6 months. i. On 21 February 1954, the applicant completed his tour in Korea and, on 29 March 1954, returned to the U.S. After brief assignments at Fort Jackson, SC and Camp Carson, CO, orders reassigned the applicant to an Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion at Fort Sheridan, IL, and he arrived on 1 June 1954. k. On 24 July 1954, after the applicant pled not guilty to one charge (breaking restriction) and guilty to the remainder, a summary court-martial convicted the applicant of all charges: leaving his appointed place of duty (a minimum manning detail); failing to obey an order to only wear either a Class A uniform or civilian attire off-post; and breaking restriction. The court sentenced the applicant to 1-month's restriction and forfeiture of $62.40. On 26 July 1954, the summary court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and ordered its execution. l. On 14 December 1954, after the applicant pled not guilty, a special court-martial convicted the applicant for disorderly conduct by covertly concealing himself, at 0130 hours, outside the window of a private home and surreptitiously observing the activities therein, and for leaving his place of duty without authority at 0130 hours. The court sentenced the applicant to reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, confinement for 5 months, and forfeiture of $55 per months for 5 months. On 18 December 1954, the special court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and ordered its execution. m. On 30 December 1954, the applicant's commander requested the separation authority convene a board of officers to determine whether the applicant should be eliminated from the service, citing as his authority Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Unfitness). The commander asserted the applicant had an extensive record of misconduct and was habitually unclean and untidy. All attempts to correct the applicant had failed to produce noticeable results, and the applicant's reassignment was unfeasible because the applicant lacked the skills and qualifications for other jobs. n. On 19 January 1955, a neuropsychiatrist evaluated the applicant and rendered a diagnosis of Passive-Aggressive Reaction with a "limited S-3 profile." (1) The applicant was never in combat, but served in Korea for 17 1/2 months. He claimed he first met trouble when he got into an argument with a white noncommissioned officer (NCO) about some women at a dance; the NCO did not want any African-American Soldiers dancing with Korean women, and the applicant refused to conform to the NCO's wishes. The applicant stated he was subsequently court- martialed and was fined two-thirds of his pay for 6 months. (2) While stationed at his current unit, the applicant had accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ on four occasions. As of the date of the evaluation, the applicant was in the Fort Sheridan stockade following his conviction for concealing himself to observe activities in a private home; the applicant maintained he had had a "few too many" drinks while in town and woke up to find himself in jail. The applicant denied any knowledge of the behavior for which he had been convicted and contended he had never done this sort of thing before. (3) The applicant expressed disappointment that he was being considered for administrative separation because his brothers had received honorable discharges, and his girlfriend would likely "look askance" at the prospect of the applicant receiving an unfavorable character of service. (4) Clinically, the applicant manifested no distortions of reality and presented no signs of either psychosis or neurosis. The applicant was a "dull, socially and culturally inadequate Negro farm boy from Georgia who, until recently, had made a more than minimal adjustment. There is no doubt that, because of his low intelligence, cultural background, and personality factors, he may tend to rationalize certain inabilities to adjust to the environment by the use of racial prejudice. On the other hand, his statements may be more truth than not." Based on his assessment, the neuropsychiatrist opined if the unit felt the applicant was too much of a burden or it was not possible to rehabilitate him, there would be "no medical contraindications" for administratively separating him. o. On or about 18 February 1955, the president of the board of officers advised the applicant in writing that he (the applicant) was directed to appear before the board on 21 February 1955; on 18 February 1955, the applicant acknowledged the notification and stated he would be there with his counsel, "Pvt. J__, JA Section, Fort Sheridan." p. On 21 February 1955, the board of officers convened to determine whether the applicant should be discharged due to unfitness. After reviewing evidence and the below-listed statements, the board recommended separation for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. (1) Second Lieutenant (2LT) R__ W. G__ (applicant's commander) stated, since the applicant's arrival at the unit, the applicant was continuously being reported by his NCOs for negligent duty performance and obscene deportment; many of the applicant's fellow enlisted Soldiers complained the applicant was not keeping himself clean. Additionally, the applicant's behavior frequently led to disciplinary action; however, all attempts to correct the applicant failed to produce visible results. (2) 2LT B__ D. U__ stated the applicant was a source of trouble and his disposition was constantly sullen. The applicant had trouble getting along with the other men in the unit because he shirked his duties. (3) 2LT H__ E. L__ indicated the applicant consistently displayed a high degree of inefficiency and a lack of character; the applicant was generally slow in his response to orders and acted indignantly when he did respond. Despite the energy put forth by his fellow Soldiers and his officers, little could be done to improve the applicant's character or attitudes. (4) Master Sergeant (MSG) F__ N. T__ affirmed the applicant was a member of his platoon; while in his platoon, the applicant often disobeyed or disregarded orders from his NCOs. The applicant frequently had to be given a direct order before he would comply. In addition, the applicant showed no military bearing; his uniforms were typically in a disgraceful condition, and the way he wore his uniforms was improper. MSG F__ N. T__ noted the applicant believed the NCOs and the officers in the unit were all against him. (5) Additional testimony from a MSG, Sergeant, Corporal, and Private First Class all reinforced the opinions expressed above, indicating the applicant's personal cleanliness was poor (to the point of creating a body odor), he continually failed to obey orders, and his duty performance was below standard. (6) The applicant testified he had enlisted in January 1952 and served 17 months in Korea; it seemed to him that, on his return to the U.S., everyone was picking on him. He did not want to be discharged because his girlfriend would not like it. q. On 4 March 1955, the separation authority approved the board's findings and recommendations and directed the applicant undesirable discharge; on 22 March 1955, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 years, 10 months, and 29 days of his 3-year enlistment contract, with 65 days of lost time; he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal with three bronze service stars, and the United Nations Service Medal. 5. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR on a case-by-case basis. 6. During the applicant's era of service, commanders were to recommend Soldiers for separation under the provisions of AR 615-368 when those Soldiers demonstrated they were totally unfit for further retention, and rehabilitation was deemed impossible. Reasons for an unfitness discharge included proof the Soldiers had antisocial or amoral mannerisms or character traits, had unclean habits, and/or were habitual shirkers. a. As a result of the commander's recommendation, the separation authority could convene a board of officers, and direct the Soldier to appear before the board; the Soldier was entitled to choose any counsel that was reasonably available. The board reported its results on a DA Form 37 (Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers) and the authorized recommendations were: discharge because of unfitness, discharge due to unsuitability, or retention in the service. The separation authority could then approve the findings and recommendations, or, if the separation authority disagreed with the result, he could be set aside the board's findings and appoint a new board of officers. When the separation authority approved an unfitness separation, the affected Soldier was issued an undesirable discharge. b. The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides guidance that Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental health conditions, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sexual harassment and sexual assault. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. 7. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 8. Based on the evidence in the applicant's service record of behavioral health issues, the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. Documentation reviewed includes the application, supporting documentation, and his military separation packet. No hard copy military medical records or civilian medical documentation were provided for review. The Department of Veterans Affairs electronic medical record, the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), did not produce any medical or behavioral health records. 2. The applicant’s military documentation included an extensive psychological report (28 May 1952) completed at Fort Bliss, TX, due to a referral for a Mental Health Consult. The consult occurred as a result of the charge of peeping at women through the windows of their homes. He was administered the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Test with a dull-normal score. With the Rorschach projective test, his limited responses were sexualized in nature. The examiner concluded the tendency of a thinking disorder and possible schizophrenia. The examiner further concluded a tendency to be in poor control with reality at times. On 19 January 1955, a Neuropsychiatric Evaluation was conducted at Fort Sheridan, IL. In the evaluation, it is noted the applicant claimed his initial trouble occurred when he attended a unit dance where a white soldier took issue with colored soldiers dancing with Korean women. His refusal to comply per his account led to a special court-martial and loss of pay. The neuropsychiatrist diagnosed him with a Passive-Aggressive Reaction. He concluded that applicant was “free from mental defect, disease or derangement.” 4. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the ARBA psychologist that the applicant has mitigating behavioral health symptoms to include psychotic ideation, paranoid thinking, learning difficulties, chronic unkemptness, hostility, difficulty with authority figures and schizotypal traits. His paranoid thinking and resistance toward authority figures appears to have worsened in a military environment, in the early to mid-1950s, where perceived unfairness and racial discrimination were rather common, both on a personal level and more systemically. Additionally, it is noted the voyeuristic behavior exhibited by applicant during military service appears to have remained untreated, unmonitored, and further unassessed until another incident, which by current standards of care, would be considered negligent and highly predictive of relapses. As there is an association between the identified behavioral health symptoms and difficulty with occupational responsibilities, cleanliness and interpersonal relations, there is a nexus between applicant’s psychological difficulties and his extensive misconduct, asocial behavior, poor hygiene, and disheveled appearance in the Army. In light of the above considerations, it is recommended applicant’s discharge be upgraded. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board determined the available records are sufficient to fully and fairly consider this case without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service to include foreign service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the review and conclusions of the ARBA psychologist based on available medical records. 3. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the ARBA psychologist that the applicant had mitigating behavioral health symptoms for the misconduct that led to his undesirable discharge. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the applicant's record should be corrected to show his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 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 his DD Form 214 for the period ending 22 March 1955 to show his service was characterized 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 a fully honorable character of service. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): 1. The current version of AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) requires the DD Form 214 to reflect all Federally-recognized awards. 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows the following: a. DA General Order (DAGO) Number 24, dated 1954, awarded the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation to the 30th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion (Semi-Mobile) for the period 11 July 1952 through 1 October 1953. b. DAGO Number 51, dated 1957, awarded the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation to the 30th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion (Semi-Mobile) for the period 7 October 1952 to 1 May 1954. c. DAGO Number 51, dated 1957, awarded the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation to the 68th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion (90 millimeter (mm)) for the period 11 September 1950 to 1 May 1954. 3. As a result, amend the applicant's DD Form 214, ending 22 March 1955, by adding the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation (3rd Award). REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. AR 615-368, in effect at the time, stated, when a Soldier demonstrated he was totally unfit for further retention in military service for any of the below listed reasons, and rehabilitation was impractical, the commander was to report the Soldier to higher headquarters and recommend the Soldier for discharge; in addition, the commander was to require the Soldier to appear before a board of officers. a. The following were reasons for separation under this regulation: * habits or traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral behavior, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct * unclean habits * repeatedly committing petty offenses not warranting trial by courts-martial * habitual shirker * recommended for discharge by a medical examiner's board because of psychopathic personality disorder, and the Soldier's record showed frequent disciplinary actions b. Based on the commander's recommendation, the separation authority convened a board of officers; the board of officers were required to apply rules of procedure and evidence and ensure the testimony of witnesses was sworn. The applicant appeared before the board of officers and was entitled to choose any counsel that was reasonably available. The board reported its results on a DA Form 37 (Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers) and the authorized recommendations were: discharge because of unfitness; discharge due to unsuitability; or retention in the service. The separation authority could approve the findings and recommendations, or, if the separation authority disagreed with the result, the board's results could be set aside and a new board of officers could be appointed. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate was issued when the Soldier was discharged for unfitness. 3. AR 615-360, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the discharge or release from active duty of enlisted personnel. Commander had the authority to issue discharge certificates reflecting the Soldier's character of service, based on the commander's evaluation of the Soldier's service and character during his overall enlistment period. a. An honorable discharge was furnished when the Soldier's record showed: * character ratings of at least "very good" * efficiency ratings of at least "excellent" * no general court-martial convictions * not more than one special court-martial conviction * subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period could outweigh disqualifying entries in the service record b. A general discharge under honorable conditions was given to Soldiers who did not qualify for an honorable discharge. 4. Special Regulation (SR) 40-1025-2 (Joint Armed Forces Nomenclature and Method of Recording Psychiatric Conditions), in effect at the time, defined character and behavior disorders as those indicative of developmental defects or pathological trends in the personality structure, with minimal subjective anxiety, and little or no sense of distress. It stated further that, in most instances, the disorder was manifested by a lifelong pattern of action or behavior ("acting out") rather than by mental or emotional symptoms. The associated categories included: * pathological personality types – maladjustment of individuals as evidenced by lifelong abnormal behavior patterns * immaturity reactions – physically adult individuals who are unable to maintain their emotional equilibrium and independence when under minor or major stress * primary childhood behavior reactions – serious emotional difficulties within the child that are not due to organic defects where emotional displays are carried to an extreme degree 5. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 6. On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 7. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 8. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR has the discretion to hold a hearing; applicants do not have a right to appear personally before the Board. The Director or the ABCMR may grant formal hearings on a case-by-case basis. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000373 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000373 13 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000373 9