BOARD DATE: 17 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180015789 APPLICANT, THE WIFE OF A FORMER SERVICE MEMBER (FSM), REQUESTS: * in effect, correction of the FSM’s records to show his physical disability retirement was effective at an earlier date APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * six DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated between 1993 - 2010 * four DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report), dated between 2009 - 2012 * two sets of deployment orders, dated 2009 and 2010 * two Line of Duty (LOD) determinations, dated 2010 and 2013 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 27 December 2012 * multiple paged unnamed medical document, dated 22 March 2013 * DA Form 7652 (Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Commander’s Performance and Functional Statement), dated 30 July 2013 * DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 1 August 2013 * Leave and Earnings Statement History Display, dated 1 August 2013 * Personnel Qualification Record – Enlisted, dated 6 August 2013 * Army National Guard (ARNG) Current Annual Statement), dated 7 August 2013 * Reserve Component Soldier Medical Support Center Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Tracking Office Request, dated 13 September 2013 * Reserve Component Medical Support Center Medical Validation Brief, dated 10 September 2013 * VA/Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Disability Evaluation Board Claim, dated 4 October 2013 * Soldier’s MEB/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Counseling Checklist, undated * Compensation and Pension (C&P) Examination, dated 19 November 2013 * Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dated 25 November 2013 * DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings), dated November 2013 * additional MEB documents * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 26 November 2013 * VA Rating Decision, dated 8 October 2014 * PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO) Estimated Disability Compensation Worksheet, undated * DA Form 199 (Informal PEB Proceedings), dated 22 October 2014 * U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (APDA) Order D337-10, dated 3 December 2014 * APDA memorandum, dated 3 December 2014 * State of Texas Death Certificate, dated 16 December 2014 * email correspondence * Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Army Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) information sheets FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the 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: a. She is humbly requesting that her husband receive the status of retired Army as he so badly wanted when alive. He gave his life to the Army so that his family would be taken care of in exchange for his service. He upheld his contract with the military and loved service. He was very proud of being a member of the Army and all she asks is that the Army recognize him as he recognized the military. b. Her husband deployed to Iraq three times. After his third tour, he sustained a heart attack and he had multiple myocardial infarctions (MI) after his return. In January 2012, he was found to be 100 percent disabled by the VA, received a medical retirement from the VA Audie L. Murphy Hospital and Social Security benefits. c. Her husband filed for an MEB on two separate occasions prior to his retirement and was denied. After his medical retirement from the VA hospital, he filed a third MEB, which was initiated and he dutifully followed all orders given to him to complete the process. As he waited for an answer and continued with all that was requested of him, her husband’s health drastically declined and he died before receiving his answer. If his request had been taken seriously when he first filed for an MEB, her husband would have met the requirements and had the honor of retiring a career he freely gave his life for. d. She feels it is the interest of justice and only fair to her husband to review his case. She spoke to many people about how to address this issue of her husband not being granted his retirement status by a technicality that was out of his control. The Fort Hood Retirement Services Office advised her to apply to the ABCMR. 3. The FSM initially enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 16 October 1989, where he served until 3 October 1993. After a brief period of service in the Regular Army from 4 October 1993 through 29 October 1993, which ended with an uncharacterized entry level status discharge, he entered a non-military, civilian break from 30 October 1993 through 27 April 1999. He again enlisted in the ARNG on 28 April 1999 and remained an ARNG member throughout the rest of his military career. 4. He was ordered to active duty in support Operation Noble Eagle on the following occasions: * from 9 March 2002 through 29 August 2002, when he was honorably released from active duty after 5 months and 21 days, due to completion of required active service * from 9 September 2002 through 20 March 2004, when he was honorably released from active duty due to the completion of required active service, after 1 year, 6 months, and 12 days 6. He was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on the following occasions: * on 15 August 2004, with duty in Iraq/Kuwait from 7 January 2005 through 25 November 2005 and he was honorably released from active duty on 10 January 2006, after 1 year, 3 months, and 26 days due to the completion of required active service * on 15 December 2008, with service in Iraq/Kuwait from 6 December 2009 through 21 July 2010 and he was honorably released from active duty on 7 October 2010, after 1 year, 9 months, and 23 days due to the completion of required active service 7. A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), shows: a. The applicant was seen as an outpatient on 31 August 2010 at the because of acute MI. He felt intense pain in his chest with numbing in his left arm while on post- deployment terminal leave and was taken to the emergency room (ER). He was seen at the ER, but sent home. b. He returned 3 days later to be told he had a heart attack and to have stints put in his heart. The following month he went to Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) with the same type of pain and was again given more stints in his heart. The form shows no formal LOD was required and on 25 October 2010, the injury was considered to have been incurred in the LOD. 8. An NGB memorandum dated 16 November 2010, shows the above referenced DA Form 2173 pertaining to the applicant for acute MI that occurred during OIF was approved in LOD, this episode only. 9. Of the provided NCOERs, only the following two annotate decreased abilities due to the applicant’s medical conditions: a. The NCOER covering the period from 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2011, shows he received a “success” rating in Physical Fitness and Military Bearing, with the remarks that he had a physical profile which exempted him from taking the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) due to a heart condition. b. The NCOER covering the period from 1 January 2012 through 31 December 2012, shows he received a “needs improvement” rating in Physical Fitness and Military Bearing with the remarks that he had a physical profile which prevented him from executing his duties and rendered him non-deployable. He was unable to participate in the APFT due to his medical condition. 10. A VA Rating Decision, dated 27 December 2012, shows the applicant received the following service-connected disability ratings effective 10 August 2011: * 100 percent for coronary artery disease * 70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * 0 percent for hypertension 11. A second DA form 2173, shows the applicant was examined at BAMC on 22 February 2013 for PTSD, which may result in permanent partial disability. The form states the applicant was diagnosed with exacerbation of PTSD following his heart attack on 31 August 2010 and was previously diagnosed with PTSD following three combat tours. It was determined a formal LOD investigation was not required and this injury was considered to have been incurred in the LOD. 12. A medical document of unknown title and source, signed and dated by a medical provider on 22 March 2013, shows the following: a. The applicant was treated for his fourth MI and stented four more times, with frequent hospitalizations for chest pain/angina as well as hospitalized for duodenal ulcer. He was followed by a cardiologist and his primary care provider. He was 100 percent disabled and in the MEB process. b. His current health problems were heart trouble/chest pain, high blood pressure, and mental health concerns, all of which were being followed by medical professionals. c. He had a physical profile rating of “3” for physical capacity or stamina and “1” in all other categories. It is unstated whether the physical profile rating of “3” was permanent or temporary. He was deemed not deployable and his cardiologist recommended military separation. 13. An NGB memorandum, dated 19 June 2013, shows the above referenced DA Form 2173 pertaining to the applicant’s PTSD that occurred during OIF was approved as in the LOD. 14. A DA form 2652, dated 30 July 2013, shows the applicant’s commander made the following performance and functional statement: * the applicant did not perform duties in his military occupational specialty as his medical status prevented him from performing any physical duties * he did not recommend retaining the applicant due to his physical limitations and the effect those limitation had on completion of the unit mission * the applicant could not complete physical fitness or training to standard 15. A DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled on 1 August 2013 because he was determined to be non-fully medically ready and medically non-deployable. He was found to be medically unfit and was informed for the requirements required of the remediation process 16. A Medical Validation Brief, dated 10 September 2013, states: a. The applicant’s medical issues were reviewed and he was determined to have reached his medical retention determination point (MRDP) for PTSD and coronary artery disease with a history of MI and chronic angina. b. The medical provider did not believe the applicant’s coronary artery disease and PTSD required further or repeat evaluation and there was adequate and timely medical documentation to substantiate his referral to an MEB. 17. A VA/Joint DOD Disability Evaluation Board Claim, dated 4 October 2013, shows the conditions of PTSD, coronary artery disease with a history of MI, and chronic angina were the medical conditions considered as the basis of a fitness for duty determination. 18. A C&P Examination, dated 19 November 2013, shows he was examined for and diagnosed with hearing loss, tinnitus, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, endocrine diabetes mellitus, hand and finger conditions, and PTSD. 19. His IDES NARSUM, dated 25 November 2013, shows: a. He failed retention standards for PTSD, coronary artery disease and unstable angina. Acute, subacute or old MI, anterior chest wall pain, mood disorder, dyssomnia, left ear conductive hearing loss, tinnitus, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, and right and left healed fifth metacarpal fracture all met retention standards. b. The applicant reached MRDP based on his inability to return to full duty after greater than 12 months of treatment and limited duty, due to his conditions of PTSD and coronary artery disease. c. The applicant was given a physical profile rating of “3” for physical capacity or stamina and “3” for psychiatric. He should not be exposed to real or simulated combat, weapons, or ammunition and required access to a fixed medical treatment facility within 20 minutes. The persistence of symptoms necessitating limitation of duty or duty in protected environment and persistence of symptoms result in interference with effective military performance. 20. A DA form 3947, shows an MEB convened on 25 November 2013. The applicant’s diagnoses of PTSD (approximate date of origin 1 January 2005), coronary artery disease (approximate date of origin 31 August 2010), and unstable angina (approximate date of origin 31 August 2010) were all deemed to fail retention standards. He was referred to a PEB and the findings and recommendation of the board were approved on 3 December 2013. 21. A DA form 3349, dated 25 November 2013, shows the applicant was given a permanent physical profile rating of “3” for physical capacity or stamina as well as psychiatric based on his PTSD, coronary artery disease status post multiple stents, and unstable angina and needed an MEB. 22. A VA Rating Decision, dated 8 October 2014, shows the applicant’s combined evaluation for service-connected disability compensation was 100 percent effective 10 August 2011 for the following conditions: * coronary artery disease, unstable angina and anterior chest wall pain, status post MI, 100 percent * PTSD, 100 percent * hypertension, 0 percent * old healed 5th metacarpal fracture, left hand, 0 percent * old healed 5th metacarpal fracture, right hand, 0 percent 23. An undated PEBLO Estimated Disability Compensation Worksheet estimated the applicant’s estimated retired pay base with a 75 percent disability rating to be $2,765.47. 24. A DA Form 199, shows an Informal PEB convened on 22 October 2014 and found the following: a. The Board found the applicant was physical unfit and recommended a rating of 100 percent and that his disposition be permanent disability retirement, for coronary artery disease with unstable angina (rated at 100 percent), and PTSD (rated at 70 percent). b. The applicant was found fit for the MEB diagnoses of acute, sub-acute, or old myocardial infarction, anterior chest wall pain, mood disorder due to coronary artery disease, dyssomnia left ear conductive hearing loss, tinnitus, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, and right and left healed 5th metacarpal fracture. c. On 30 October 2014, the applicant concurred with the findings and waived a formal hearing of his case. He did not request reconsideration of his VA ratings. 25. An APDA memorandum, dated 3 December 2014, advised the applicant he was found to have a disability and would be permanently retired with a disability rating of 100 percent. a. A Copy of his retirement orders were enclosed and he was informed that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Retired Pay was furnished the data to compute his retired pay and establish his retired pay account. b. He was further advised to complete a DD Form 2656 (Data for Payment of Retired Personnel and contact the nearest Installation Retirement Services Officer for assistance with activating his retired pay account and providing retirement and Survivor Benefit Plan counseling. 26. APDA Orders D337-10, dated 3 December 2014 released the applicant form assignment and duty because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay and under conditions that permit his retirement for permanent physical disability. The effective date of his placement on the retired list was 7 January 2015, with a percentage of disability at 100 percent. 27. A State of Texas Certificate of Death, while partially illegible, appears to show the applicant died on 16 December 2014 due to the combined effects of pulmonary fibrosis and arteriosclerosis cardiovascular diseases. 28. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant's records in iPERMS, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) and the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant is the deceased veteran’s widow. On behalf or her husband, she is requesting the retirement discharge that he was unable to receive because of his untimely death and that he may have been entitled to receive at an earlier juncture. AR 40-501, Chapter 3-21a (1), coronary artery disease associated with myocardial infarction and angina pectoris due to fixed obstructive coronary artery disease, provides that a MEB should be initiated after each event followed by a 120 day duty trial period. The veteran had his first MI (myocardial infarction or heart attack) on 31 Aug 2010 and the second on 31 Oct 2010. He was enrolled in cardiac rehab and then was extended on active duty to complete rehab and for the requisite 120 day trial of duty. Despite the cardiac events, his exercise tolerance appeared to be mostly preserved: 15 Dec 2010 Cardiac stress test showed maximal work load of 12.7 METS (Class I New York Heart Association-low risk or good prognosis). He did well until the 24 January 2012 MI due to late stent thrombosis. A 06 February 2012 letter from his private cardiologist stated that the veteran underwent an exercise stress test in January 2012 and was able to complete five METS (Class II/III NYHA- fair to good prognosis with therapy) but could not achieve seven METS due to significant shortness of breath and dyspnea (difficulty breathing). (No cardiac ischemic changes were mentioned). A 24 Apr 2012 Chronological Record of Medical Care (CRMC) case management note (found in HAIMS) indicated the veteran was in the board process. The 120 day trial of duty would have been finished in May 2012, but it doesn’t look like he saw military cardiology again until Sept 2012. The interim 23 Mar 2012 and 06 Jun 2012 VA Primary Care clinic notes documented the veteran’s preference to be seen by an outside cardiologist at that time. On 04 Aug 2012, the veteran had another MI necessitating surgical intervention. The 04 Sept 2012 Cardiology BAMC note stated the cardiologist felt the applicant did not meet retention standards. The NCO Evaluation Report covering the period 20120101 to 20121231 shows the veteran was unable to participate in training or APFT due to medical conditions, and his profile (not specified whether temporary or permanent) prevented him from executing his duties and was not deployable; and he was pending a MEB. (He had 2 cardiac events during this rating period.) Despite the Sept 2012 cardiologist’s opinion the heart condition failed retention standards, an 18 Oct 2012 CRMC case management note annotates the MEB packet was rejected- no explanation was documented. However, records show the veteran had re-entered cardiac rehab participating from Sept through Dec 2012. And the 06 Dec 2012 Exercise Stress Test results documented in the NARSUM notes showed the Veteran achieved a work load of 13.4 METS (Class I NYHA- good prognosis), "Excellent exercise tolerance". b. IAW AR 40-501, Chapter 3-25, if the Soldier successfully completes the trial of duty; is considered a New York Heart Association Functional Class I; AND there are no physical or assignments restrictions, the Soldier may be returned to duty without referral to a PEB. For RC Soldiers not on active duty, the trial of duty may consider performance in the Soldier’s civilian position, as well as any military duty that may have been performed in the interim. It is noted, the veteran was employed fulltime with the VA as a police officer until he was medically retired in January 2013. The 22 Mar 2013 CRMC case management note says the veteran was given a permanent P3 profile for MI and he was pursuing an S3 level profile for PTSD. On 19 June 2013 the veteran was given an official LOD for PTSD. The 04 Dec 2013 CRMC case management note states the veteran received his MEB findings and would sign it with his PEBLO the next day. c. Though the veteran reportedly received 100% disability from the VA in January 2012, this total combined rating was not permanent. On 20 Oct 2014 the veteran called his cardiologist (Cardiology BAMC telephone note) in concern, reporting the VA was reducing his disability compensation from 100% to 10% due to the recent cath showing open stents. The 08 Oct 2014 VA Rating Decision (based on the Dec 2012 Exercise Stress Test; the interview based 5-7 METs test results from Nov 2013; and the June 2013 Stress Echocardiography showing 70% EF, or normal left ventricle function) proposed to decrease the rating for the CAD condition from 100% to 10%; while the PTSD rating remained at 70%. d. The veteran had 2 permanent conditions that were still symptomatic after having exhausted multiple treatment options. The conditions continued to impact performance, and would be hazardous to his health if he continued to serve. The RC SMSC (Reserve Component Soldier Medical Support Center Medical Validation Brief) completed 10 Sep 2013 outlines this succinctly and affirms that both the Coronary Artery Disease with History of Myocardial Infarction and Chronic Angina; and PTSD conditions were at MRDP (medical retention determination point), after which a MEB/PEB should ensue. e. This reviewer is of the opinion that the medical facts and timeline for the MEB Proceedings completed 25 November 2013 seem appropriate and fair, and the rejection of the previous MEB packet(s), reasonable. That being said, the timeline for the PEB Proceedings is in question: The Oct 2014 VA Rating Decision lists as part of the evidence reviewed, a PEB Proceedings dated 18 Dec 2013. However, the PEB Proceedings included in the applicant’s package was convened 22 October 2014. The reviewer could not find a medical explanation for the 11 months that separated the Nov 2013 MEB Proceedings and the Oct 2014 PEB Proceedings in the treatment or case management records available for review. Any other explanation is outside the purview of this review. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the FSM’s military records, the medical advisory, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding there was no medical explanation for the 11 months that separated the Nov 2013 MEB Proceedings and the Oct 2014 PEB Proceedings. The Board considered the Oct 2014 VA Rating Decision that lists as part of the evidence reviewed, a PEB Proceedings dated 18 Dec 2013. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant relief and retire the FSM for permanent physical disability as of 18 December 2013. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * voiding APDA Orders D337-10, dated 3 December 2014 * reissuing APDA Orders with an effective date of retirement for permanent physical disability of 18 December 2013 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Paragraph 3-2 states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Paragraph 3-4 states Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 4. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. a. Soldiers with conditions listed in chapter 3 who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by an MEB and will be referred to a PEB as defined in Army Regulation 635–40. b. Chapter 3 further states possession of one or more of the disqualifying conditions listed in this chapter does not mean automatic retirement or separation from the service. Soldiers with any medical condition, injury, or defect (individually or in combination) that meets the definition of a disqualifying medical condition or physical defect will be referred to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). The profiling officer and approval authority are responsible for referring Soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter to the DES by submitting a permanent profile with a 3 or 4 designation for conditions that have met a Medical Retention Determination Point (MRDP). 5. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 6. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities that were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice on the part of the Army. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The VA does not have the authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. These two government agencies operate under different policies. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 7. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180015789 11 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1