IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008191 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * reconsideration of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) decision in Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20160000972, dated 12 March 2018 * approval of the partial relief recommended by the ABCMR by referring her record to a special selection board (SSB) for promotion consideration to colonel (COL)/O-6 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 2 June 2018, subject: Request Reconsideration of Decision by Letter Dated March 16, 2018: (Applicant) * DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with separation dates of 13 July 2009, 24 June 2012, and 18 December 2018 * Spouse's U.S. Uniformed Services Dependent Identification Card * Optional Form 41 (Routing and Transmittal Slip), dated 16 December 2014 * ABCMR Docket Number AR20160000972, dated 6 February 2018 * Memorandum, Army Review Boards Agency, dated 12 March 2018, subject: ABCMR Record of Proceedings for (Applicant) * Letter, ABCMR, dated 16 March 2018 * Letter, Applicant, dated 4 June 2019, with Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Summary of Retired Pay Account, dated 2 May 2019 REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL). The RASL is a list required to be maintained that contains the names of all officers, except warrant officers, who are in an active status in a Reserve Component of the Army and are not on an Active Duty List (ADL). a. Table 2-1 (Time in Grade Requirements Commission Officers, Other than Commissioned Warrant Officers) shows the minimum years in lower grade for promotion from lieutenant colonel (LTC) to COL is 3 years. Normal time in grade is 5 years, subject to the needs of the Army. b. Paragraph 2-5 (Eligibility for Consideration) states to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade, a USAR officer must have continuously performed service on either the RASL or the ADL (or a combination of both lists) during the 1-year period ending on the convening date of the promotion board, and must meet the time-in-grade requirements in Table 2-1. An officer who has an established date for removal from the RASL, with an established date for removal from active status, that is 90 days or less from the convening date of the selection board for which the officer would otherwise be eligible, is not eligible for consideration. An established date for removal is a date that is prescribed by statue, regulation, or published in orders and not in conflict with law or regulation. c. Paragraph 3-19 (Promotion Reconsideration Boards) states officers and warrant officers who have either failed of selection for promotion or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered from promotion by either a promotion advisory board or an SSB. Records of officers or former officers will be referred for SSB action when the Office of Promotions (Reserve Components) determines the ABCMR requests such a referral. d. Paragraph 3-20 (Information Provided to SSBs) states a promotion reconsideration board will consider the record of the officer as it should have been considered by the original board. The records of officers being reconsidered by an SSB will be compared with a sampling of those officers of the same competitive category who were recommended and who were not recommended for promotion by the original mandatory Reserve of the Army selection board. e. Paragraph 4-33 (Action Resulting from Nonselection) states LTCs, unless continued on the RASL or can be credited with 18 or more but less than 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay, who are not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to COL will be removed from the RASL (if not removed earlier from the RASL) on the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 28 years of commissioned service. 2. Army Regulation 135-180 (Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service), effective 1 August 1987 and in effect at the time, implemented statutory authorities governing granting retired pay to Soldiers and former Reserve Component Soldiers. a. Paragraph 2-4 (Statements of Service and Retirement Point Credits) stated area commanders and the Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, will furnish statements of service and retirement point credits when request by Ready Reserve Soldiers under their jurisdiction. b. Paragraph 2-8b (Service Creditable as Qualifying Service) stated after 30 June 1949, a Reserve member must earn a minimum of 50 retirement points each retirement year to have that year credited as qualifying service. 3. Army Regulation 140-185 (Training and Retirement Point Credits and Unit Level Strength Accounting Records) sets responsibilities and procedures to establish and maintain USAR retirement records prescribing the types of training and activities for which retirement points are authorized. a. Paragraph 1-7 (Service Requirement for a Satisfactory Year of Service for Non- Regular Retirement) states a qualifying year of service for Non-Regular retired pay is a full year during which a Reserve Component member is credited with a minimum of 50 retirement points. b. Paragraph 2-1 (Criteria for Crediting Retirement Points) states the limitations on the number of points that may be credited to a Soldier during an anniversary year are: * maximum – 365 points (366 points during leap year) * no more than 1 retirement point may be awarded for any day in which the Soldier is on active duty – a Soldier in active service may not receive retirement points for other activities performed concurrently * inactive duty training (IDT) will be either 4 hours in length for 1 retirement point or 8 hours in length for 2 retirement points * membership – Soldiers are awarded 15 membership points for each year in an active status – if the Soldier is on active duty for more than 350 days, membership points will be reduced so that the maximum 365 points are not exceeded c. Paragraph 2-2 (Criterial for Earning Retirement Points) states retirement points may be earned by USAR Soldiers for active duty or duty in an active status for active duty for training, initial active duty for training, involuntary active duty for training, voluntary IDT, annual training, IDT, membership points, and for other activities as specified in this regulation. 4. Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers), effective 15 September 2005 and in effect at the time, prescribed policies, responsibilities, and procedures to assign, attach, detain, remove, or transfer USAR Soldiers. Chapter 7 (Removal from Active Status) stated Soldiers removed from active status will be discharged or transferred to the Retired Reserve. Paragraph 7-2 (Length of Service) stated: a. LTCs are removed on the earlier of the following dates: the actual removal date will be 30 days after they complete 28 years of commissioned service if under age 25 at initial appointment, or their 53rd birthday day if age 25 or older at initial appointment. Officers recommended for promotion by a selection board are removed under the criteria that apply to the higher grade. This applied only if the officer remained in an active status since recommended for promotion. b. COLs are removed on the earlier of the following dates: the actual removal date will be 30 days after they complete 30 years of commissioned service if under age 25 at initial appointment, or their 55th birthday day if age 25 or older at initial appointment. Officers recommended for promotion by a selection board are removed under the criteria that apply to the higher grade. This applied only if the officer remained in an active status since recommended for promotion. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-7 (Retirement Services Program), effective 3 July 2000 and in effect at the time, prescribed the policies for the retirement services and Survivor Benefit Plan functions of the Military Personnel Management System. Chapter 3 (Preretirement Services) stated Soldiers must receive a preretirement briefing between the time the retirement application is submitted and 120 days before the retirement date. Transition points will verify that a Soldier has attended a preretirement briefing before completing final out-processing. There was no provision for the Retirement Points Accounting System (RPAS) or an Army Retiring Soldier Commendation Program package. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-7, effective 18 January 2017 and currently in effect, prescribes the policies for the retirement services and Survivor Benefit Plan functions of Military Human Resources Management. a. Paragraph 1-7 (Principles of Support) states the military personnel system will honor individual Soldiers and their families for their careers of selfless service to the Army and nation when they retire or transition to the Retired Reserve by issuing the Army Retiring Soldier Commendation Program package, which includes: * full-color letter signed by the Secretary of Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Sergeant Major of the Army * U.S. flag * Retired Army Lapel Button * two full-color Department of the Army Labels 180 (Soldier for Life Window Stickers) b. Paragraph 7-17 (Army Reserve Pre-retirement Briefing) states USAR Retirement Services Offices will provide a pre-retirement briefing to Reserve Soldiers between the 18th and 20th year of qualifying service. c. Paragraph 7-18 (Army Reserve Non-Regular Service Retirement) states RPAS was implemented to facilitate compliance with a number of laws and to provide an automated method to ensure timely recording and verification of all retirement points earned during a USAR Soldier's career. 7. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12686 (Reserves on Active Duty within 2 Years of Retirement Eligibility – Limitation on Release from Active Duty), provides that a member of a Reserve Component who is on active duty (other than for training) and is within 2 years of becoming eligible for retired pay may not be involuntarily released from that duty before he or she becomes eligible for that pay, unless the release is approved by the Secretary concerned. With respect to a member of a Reserve Component who is to be ordered to active duty (other than for training) under section 12301 of this title pursuant to an order to active duty that specifies a period of less than 180 days and who (but for this subsection) would be covered by subsection (a), the Secretary concerned may require, as a condition of such order to active duty, that the member waive the applicability of subsection (a) to the member for the period of active duty covered by that order. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary concerned may require that a waiver under the preceding sentence be executed before the period of active duty begins. FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20160000972 on 6 February 2018. 2. The applicant states she requests reconsideration based on the following incorrect evidence and arguments not considered: a. Her mandatory removal date (MRD) date was created by whomever at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) accessed her transfer from the National Guard in 2007. Therefore, the error was created in 2007 and not detected for 7 years, even though her record should have been reviewed annually. b. The fact that HRC had her complete MRD extension request packet, knew the short time frame they had to get her MRD extension request to the approving authority, and purposely held it for 45 days until after she was retired, is probable error that caused injury to her career and significant financial hardship. c. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings indicates she entered active duty on 25 June 2012. She entered active duty on 14 July 2008. From 14 July 2008 through 18 December 2014, she was serving on active duty while assigned to various organizations. d. Her dependent's identification card indicates an expiration date of 21 December 2018. This date was provided by the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) staff responsible for the input into DEERS, which includes calculated MRD at HRC Accessions Division. e. The ABCMR decision fails to take judicial notice of the fact that the HRC Reserve Components Personnel Administration Center (formerly known as the U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel Administration Center from 1971 to 1984, the USAR Personnel Center from 1984 to 1998, and the USAR Personnel Command from 1998 to 2003) was the point of contact and controller of her records from 2007 through 2014. She transferred from the National Guard to the USAR Control Group (a personnel pool principally consisting of Individual Ready Reserve Soldiers who have a remaining military service obligation and who are not members of units). At no time did any member of HRC review her records or correct her MRD during that 7-year period. f. HRC personnel in charge of processing her MRD extension packet, knowing the urgency of time, did not process her packet timely, held it for an additional 45 days until the date the system would transfer her to the Retired Reserve, then forwarded it to the approving authority and indicated she had already retired and therefore they should disapprove her request. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings references the Routing and Transmittal Slip, which shows HRC purposely held it from processing so it could not reach the approving authority in a timely manner. g. Army Regulation 600-8-7 mandates the pre-retirement process. She did not have an opportunity to attend a mandated pre-retirement briefing to prepare her and her family for the transition. h. Army Regulation 600-8-7 also mandates that HRC create the RPAS. If HRC personnel were executing their jobs properly, then this error, which caused a huge financial burden on her family that includes her son who was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program, would have been avoided. i. Having been on active duty for more than 6 years, she no longer had reemployment protections and had to empty her Thrift Savings Plan account in order to provide for her family. j. As further evidence of the complete breakdown in adhering to regulations in this matter, she did not receive the Army Retiring Commendation Packet, which is supposed to include a Retirement Certificate, Presidential Certificate of Recognition, Spouse Certificate, Soldier Commendation, U.S. Flag, Army Retired Pin, retired decals, and signed retirement letters from the Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Sergeant Major of the Army. 3. On 15 January 1987 she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the USAR in the rank/grade of second lieutenant/O-1. 4. A review of her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) shows a Department of the Army Reserve Personnel (DARP) Form 871 (Computation Sheet – Basic Date) was added on 23 March 1995, showing her tentative date for mandatory removal after 28 years of commissioned service as 14 January 2015. 5. HRC Orders B-11-608330, dated 9 November 2006, promoted her to the rank/grade of LTC/O-5 effective 1 November 2006. 6. A review of her AMHRR shows she completed an HRC Form 2370-R (Application for USAR Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Duty) on 27 April 2009. She listed her MRD as 1 February 2015. 7. Military Personnel Message Number 10-048, dated 17 February 2010, subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, COL, Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AR AGR), and Army Reserve Non-Active Guard Reserve (AR NON-AGR), Army Promotion List (APL), Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards, shows the applicant was in the zone of consideration for promotion to COL below the zone. She was not selected for promotion. 8. Military Personnel Message Number 11-065, dated 28 February 2011, subject: FY11, COL, ARNGUS, AR AGR, and AR NON-AGR, APL, Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards, shows the applicant was in the zone of consideration for promotion to COL. She was not selected for promotion. 9. Military Personnel Message Number 12-105, dated 3 April 2012, subject: FY12, COL, ARNGUS, AR AGR, and AR NON-AGR, APL, Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards, shows the applicant was in the zone of consideration for promotion to COL above the zone. She was not selected for promotion. 10. Military Personnel Message Number 12-337, dated 25 October 2012, subject: FY13, COL, ARNGUS, AR AGR, and AR NON-AGR, APL, Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards, shows the applicant was in the zone of consideration for promotion to COL above the zone. She was not selected for promotion. 11. HRC Orders M-05-300198, dated 31 May 2013, ordered her to active duty under partial mobilization effective 25 June 2013 for a period not to exceed 170 days unless extended or terminated by proper authority, to be released from active duty no later than 11 December 2013. 12. Military Personnel Message Number 13-248, dated 12 September 2013, subject: FY14, COL, ARNGUS, AR AGR, and AR NON-AGR, APL, Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards, shows the applicant was in the zone of consideration for promotion to COL above the zone. She was not selected for promotion. 13. HRC Orders M-05-300198A03, dated 14 March 2014, amended Orders M-05-300198, to extend the active duty period not to exceed 542 days unless extended or terminated by proper authority, to be released from active duty no later than 18 December 2014. 14. On 30 October 2014, she requested a 1-year extension of her MRD. She stated she was recently notified that her MRD of 1 March 2016 posted in her "My Records" section of the HRC website for the last 10 years was incorrect and should be 1 February 2015. 15. On 3 November 2014, she completed a DD Form 2648-1 (Transition Assistance Program Checklist for Deactivating/Demobilizing National Guard and Reserve Service Members), acknowledging she received transition counseling and she understood the transition benefits and services available to assist her in her transition from active duty. 16. On 29 November 2014, HRC notified her of her attainment of maximum service effective 1 February 2015. She elected to transfer to the Retired Reserve. 17. She was released from active duty on 18 December 2014. Her DD Form 214 for the period 25 June 2012 until 18 December 2014 shows her narrative reason for separation as "Completion of Required Active Service." Her two previous DD Forms 214 show she served on active duty from 14 July 2008 until 13 July 2009 and from 14 July 2009 until 24 June 2012. She completed a total of 12 years, 5 months, and 11 days of active Federal service. 18. The HRC memorandum, dated 12 January 2015, subject: Retention beyond MRD for (Applicant), states: a. She is requesting an MRD extension to 1 February 2016 due to an administrative error; her MRD was entered into the system as 1 March 2016. In November 2014, the error was discovered and her MRD was corrected to 1 February 2015. b. She is requesting an MRD extension to support Operation United Assistance and properly execute all that is required to retire. Her request is supported by her command. c. The Chief, Leader Development Division, recommended disapproval of the applicant's request as there was no operational need that justified an extension of her MRD. She completed her tour and was released from active duty effective 18 December 2014. 19. On 12 January 2015, the Personnel Policy Integrator, Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, emailed HRC wherein he stated: a. He evaluated the request from the applicant with HRC endorsements and found no justifiable reason to recommend her for a 1-year or any other period of selective continuation. b. An error in the MRD field is not a sufficient basis to retain an officer beyond his or her MRD, particularly as it was discovered prior to her reaching her correct MRD by law. c. There is also no basis to retain her for retirement processing as she is not immediately eligible for Non-Regular retired pay. d. Based on the above, HRC must publish orders transferring her to the Retired Reserve effective 1 February 2015. 20. HRC Orders C-01-501300, dated 16 January 2015, assigned her to the Retired Reserve effective 1 February 2015. 21. The Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, memorandum, dated 24 July 2015, subject: Retention beyond MRD for (Applicant), states: a. The request to defer the applicant's MRD until 1 February 2016 is returned without action. b. The applicant's continuation beyond her MRD may only be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs or the Secretary of the Army. c. The applicant reached her MRD and was properly transferred to the Retired Reserve before her request could be considered by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Her request may no longer be considered or acted upon as her removal from the RASL is administratively final. d. While the applicant's request cited an administrative error in her MRD calculation field, this is not a sufficient basis to retain an officer beyond his or her MRD, particularly as it was discovered prior to her reaching her correct MRD by law. The applicant was no longer performing a mission requirement on active duty when her request was received. e. HRC's recommendation was for disapproval and this office's recommendation is also for disapproval. f. The applicant is qualified for retirement for Non-Regular service upon reaching age 60 (or qualifying for the age reduction under the statue) and is not otherwise qualified for retirement from active duty. 22. On 16 February 2017, the HRC Personnel Actions Branch rendered an advisory opinion, wherein the Chief, Personnel Actions Branch, stated: a. The applicant's MRD (1 February 2015) was administratively adjusted to reflect 28 years of commissioned service based on her commissioning date of 15 January 1987. b. On 5 November 2014, HRC received documentation from the applicant requesting to extend her MRD. The request was incomplete and returned to her, at which time she was advised that MRD extension requests are approved at Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, level and may take up to 6 months to receive an answer. c. On 24 July 2015 in consideration of the applicant's request, the Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, wrote to the Commanding General, HRC, stating the applicant's request "may no longer be considered or acted upon as her removal from the Reserve Active Status List is administratively final." 23. On 7 March 2017, the HRC Officer Promotions Branch rendered an advisory opinion wherein the Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, stated: a. Based on a review of their records and the information provided, we find that the applicant's request for an SSB does not have merit. b. The applicant requested that her 1 February 2015 MRD on the RASL be extended; however, it was denied by the Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. c. The FY15 COL Promotion Board was held on 13 January 2015, less than 90 days from the applicant's departure from the RASL. Therefore, she was not eligible for promotion consideration. 24. On 6 February 2018, the ABCMR determined the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for a partial relief. As a result, the Board recommended correction of the applicant's records by referring her records to an SSB for promotion consideration to COL/O-6. If selected for promotion by the SSB, these proceedings serve as the authority to: * restore her to the RASL * award her the minimum number of retirement points to qualify for "good" years from the date of her separation, to include points for pay * pay her any pay and allowances due 25. On 12 March 2018, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the finding, conclusion, and Board member recommendations, and found there was not sufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant reached her MRD and with it she departed from the RASL and was not eligible for promotion consideration. 26. The applicant's Summary of Retired Pay Account, dated 2 May 2019, shows: * Service for Basic Pay – 32 years, 10 months, 29 days * Total Points upon Which Retired Pay Computed – 6,674 * Equivalent Years of Service (6674 points divided by 360) – 18.54 27. On 4 June 2019, the applicant stated she received a decision on her original ABCMR request. a. One of the assertions is that HRC did not count all of her active duty time correctly. She just received a notification from DFAS that calculated her years of service using the same number of retirement points of 6,674 to equal 18.54 years of service. She should have been retained on active duty. b. With the attached proof of service, she requests reinstatement on active duty and allowance to continue on active duty to complete 20 years of active Federal service for retirement purposes. c. She also requests consideration for promotion to COL promotion by an SSB. 28. The applicant's DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), dated 24 February 2020, shows she completed 28 years and 1 day of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60. 29. A review of her AMHRR shows she completed 12 years, 5 months, and 11 days of total active Federal service as shown on the DD Forms 214 covering the periods: * 15 March 1988 through 19 July 1988 * 20 May 1990 through 15 August 1993 * 16 October 1995 through 21 March 1996 * 12 October 2002 through 23 August 2003 * 15 September 2003 through 19 December 2003 * 23 January 2006 through 20 July 2006 * 26 February 2007 through 9 July 2007 * 14 July 2008 through 13 July 2009 * 14 July 2009 through 24 June 2012 * 25 June 2012 through 18 December 2014 BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and regulatory requirements. The Board noted the facts presented above. 2. Concerning the applicant’s MRD, the Board noted that on 27 April 2009, when the applicant signed her HRC Form 2370-R (Application for USAR Active Guard Reserve (AGR), she listed her MRD as 1 February 2015 so she would have known that the 1 March 2016 MRD date posted in her "My Records" section of the HRC website was erroneous. 3. Concerning her application for a one-year extension of her MRD, while she contends that her request submitted on 30 October 2014 (4 months before her 1 February 2015 MRD) was not processed in a timely manner, the Board also noted that HRC responded immediately on 5 November 2014 informing the applicant that her request was incomplete, returned to her, and informed her that it may take up to 6 months to receive an decision from the Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. Further, as indicated above in paragraph 2, the applicant knew on 27 April 2009 that her MRD was 1 February 2015 and could at any time from 2009 to 2014 requested a MRD extension in a timely manner. Regardless of the G1 receiving the applicant’s request after her MRD, the G1 stated that while the applicant's request cited an administrative error in her MRD calculation field, that was not a sufficient basis to retain the officer beyond her MRD, particularly as the MRD error was discovered prior to her reaching her correct MRD by law (as early as 2009). The applicant is qualified for retirement for Non-Regular service upon reaching age 60 (or qualifying for the age reduction under the statue) and is not otherwise qualified for retirement from active duty. Both HRC and G1 recommended disapproval of the MRD extension request. This Board finds no error or injustice 4. Concerning the applicant’s years of service for 18-year retention to retirement, retirement points equivalent years of service for retired pay does not constitute calendar years of active duty required for the 18-year lock in to regular retirement. The applicant completed 12 years, 5 months, and 11 days of total active Federal service as shown on her DD Forms 214, not 18 plus years. 5. Concerning implementation of a SSB, the Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, reviewed the applicant’s records and found that the request for an SSB did not have merit. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the the applicant’s case and Board member recommendations, and likewise found there was not sufficient evidence to grant a SSB. The applicant reached her correct and lawful MRD and with it she departed from the RASL and was not eligible for promotion consideration. 6. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that there was no error or injustice in the prior Board decision, the applicant’s MRD, promotion Boards, or retirement. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief is not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180008191 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1