SAMR-RB 14 December 2020 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for ., AR20190012981 1.Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record ofProceedings in which a majority of Board members recommended partial relief of theapplicant’s request. 2.I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. Ifind there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. Therefore, under the authority ofTitle 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the ArmyRecords of the individual concerned be corrected by removing the General OfficerMemorandum of Reprimand dated 11 March 2005 from the applicant’s AMHRR andforwarding his records to a promotion Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB). I do notapprove the Board majority recommendation to reinstate the applicant to the FiscalYear 2016 Sergeant Major Promotion List or any further relief than that describedabove. 3.Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of recordsas indicated no later than 1 February 2021. Further, request that the individualconcerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have showninterest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecords be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl XDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (RB) CF: ( ) OMPF ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190012981 APPLICANT REQUESTS: .removal of his name from the title block of a U.S. Army Criminal InvestigationCommand (USACIDC or CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) .removal of the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated11 March 2005, from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) .reinstatement to the Fiscal Year 2016 Sergeant Major (SGM) Promotion List APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisionsof Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) .Letter, Commander, Special Operations Command Central, MacDill Air ForceBase, FL, dated 12 December 2016 .DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 15 March2018 (Joint Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Academy (JSOFSEA)) .Memorandum, Applicant, dated 14 November 2018, subject: Tilting of Recordsfor (Applicant), with enclosures – .Letter, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, dated30 November 2017 .Enlisted Record Brief, dated 18 November 2018 .four DA Forms 2166-9-2 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report(NCOER) (SSG-1SG/MSG)) covering the periods 1 June 2015 through28 June 2019 .Memorandum, Applicant, dated 11 September 2019, subject: Service MemberResponse to HRC Advisory Board .Letter, USACIDC, Quantico, VA, undated REFERENCES: 1.Army Regulation 190-45 (Law Enforcement Reporting) establishes policies andprocedures for offense and serious-incident reporting within the Army; for reporting to the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Justice, as appropriate; and for participating in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center, the Department of Justice's Criminal Justice Information System, the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, and State criminal justice systems. a.Paragraph 3-6a states an amendment of records is appropriate when suchrecords are established as being inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete. Amendment procedures are not intended to permit challenging an event that actually occurred. Requests to amend reports will be granted only if the individual submits new, relevant, and material facts that are determined to warrant their inclusion in or revision of the police report. The burden of proof is on the individual to substantiate the request. Requests to delete a person's name from the title block will be granted only if it is determined that there is not probable cause to believe that the individual committed the offense for which he or she is listed as a subject. It is emphasized that the decision to list a person's name in the title block of a police report is an investigative determination that is independent of whether or not subsequent judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action is taken against the individual. In compliance with DOD policy, an individual will still remain entered in the Defense Clearance Investigations Index (DCII) to track all reports of investigation. b.Paragraph 4-3a states an incident will not be reported as a founded offenseunless adequately substantiated by police investigation. A person or entity will be reported as the subject of an offense on the Law Enforcement Report (LER) when credible information exists that the person or entity has committed a criminal offense. The decision to title a person is an operational, rather than a legal, determination. The act of titling and indexing does not, in and of itself, connote any degree of guilt or innocence; rather, it ensures that information in a report of investigation can be retrieved at some future time for law enforcement and security purposes. Judicial or adverse administrative actions will not be based solely on the listing of an individual or legal entity as a subject on the LER. c.Paragraph 4-3d states that when investigative activity identifies a subject, all factsof the case must be considered. When a person, corporation, or other legal entity is entered in the "subject" block of the LER, their identity is recorded in Department of the Army automated systems and the DCII. Once entered into the DCII, the record can only be removed in cases of mistaken identity or if an error was made in applying the credible information standard at the time of listing the entity as a subject of the report. It is emphasized that the credible information error must occur at the time of listing the entity as the subject of the LER rather than subsequent investigation determining that the LER is unfounded. This policy is consistent with DOD reporting requirements. The Director, U.S. Army Crime Records Center, enters individuals from the LER into the DCII. 2.Army Regulation 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities) establishes policies oncriminal investigation activities, including the utilization, control, and investigativeresponsibilities of all personnel assigned to the USACIDC elements. Paragraph 4-4b(Amendment of CID Reports) provides that: a.Requests to amend or unfound offenses in USACIDC ROIs will be granted only ifthe individual submits new, relevant, and material facts that are determined to warrant revision of the report. b.The burden of proof to substantiate the request rests with the individual. c.Requests to delete a person's name from the title block will be granted if it isdetermined that credible information did not exist to believe the individual committed the offense for which titled as a subject at the time the investigation was initiated or the wrong person's name was entered as a result of mistaken identity. d.The decision to list a person's name in the title block of a USACIDC ROI is aninvestigative determination that is independent of judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action taken against the individual or the results of such action. e.The decision to make any changes in the report rests within the sole discretion ofthe Commanding General, USACIDC. The decision will constitute final action on behalf of the Secretary of the Army with respect to requests for amendment under this regulation. 3.Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes policiesand procedures governing promotions and reductions of Army enlisted personnel. a.Chapter 4 (Centralized Promotions) provides that Soldiers selected to attend theSergeants Major Course (SMC) by a centralized selection board are subject to post-board personnel suitability screening. This process includes a review of information contained in the restricted folder of the AMHRR, substantiated Department of the Army Inspector General reports, and reports filed with the U.S. Army Crime Records Center. Soldiers found to have possible disqualifying derogatory information as a result of this screening will receive separate written notification from HRC. The notification will include copies of all derogatory information and will outline the rebuttal process for submission to a Standby Advisory Board (STAB). The STAB, complete with the Soldier's rebuttal should one be rendered, will then consider the Soldier's eligibility for attendance to the SMC. This STAB will make a recommendation to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Directorate of Military Personnel Management, for final decision on the suitability of the affected Soldier to serve as otherwise selected. Soldiers found unsuitable to attend the SMC will receive formal notification and are permanently ineligible for further consideration and selection to attend the course and, subsequently, promotion to SGM. b.Section IV (Processing Request for STAB Consideration) states the Deputy Chiefof Staff, G-1, or designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon determining that a material error existed in a Solder's AMHRR when the file was reviewed by a selection board. STABs are convened to consider records of those recommended Soldiers on whom derogatory information has developed that may warrant removal from a recommended list. This includes Soldiers selected to attend the SMC for the purpose of promotion to SGM but were referred by the U.S. Army Senior Enlisted Review Board because of derogatory information identified during the post-board screening process. c.Paragraph 4-17 (Removal from a Centralized Selection List by Headquarters,Department of the Army) provides that HRC will continuously review selection lists against all information available to ensure that no Soldier is promoted or allowed to attend and/or complete training at the SMC for the purpose of promotion when there is cause to believe that a Soldier is mentally, physically, morally, or professionally unqualified to perform the duties of the higher rank. Soldiers will be referred to a STAB for derogatory background information as determined by the U.S. Army Senior Enlisted Review Board in accordance with the Army Personnel Suitability Screening Policy; and/or other derogatory information received by Headquarters, Department of the Army, but not filed in the AMHRR, if it is substantiated, relevant, and might reasonably and materially affect a promotion recommendation. d.Paragraph 4-18 (Appeals of Removal from a Centralized Promotion List) providesthat a Soldier who is removed from a selection list may appeal that action only in limited circumstances. HRC will take final action on any appeal. Soldiers may appeal a removal action when the underlying basis of the removal is subsequently determined to be erroneous. The subsequent determination must be based on facts that were not available or reasonably discoverable at the time of the original action or at the time the Soldier was notified of the removal action. An appeal may also be submitted for other compelling reasons. 4.Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies andprocedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served byauthorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed froman individual's AMHRR. a.An administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual'scommander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. b.A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's AMHRR only upon theorder of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the AMHRR, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the AMHRR, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with chapter 7 (Appeals). c.Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards) provides that once an official documenthas been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the AMHRR. d.Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of anappeal for transfer to the restricted folder of the AMHRR. Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. 5.Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management)prescribes policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records ManagementProgram. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the Official Military Personnel File,finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary tostore by the Army. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in theAMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by theABCMR or other authorized agency. 6.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemencydeterminations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminalsentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, whichmay be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does notmandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs inapplication of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief onthe basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider theprospect 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. FACTS: 1.The applicant states in a memorandum for record, dated 14 November 2018,subject: Tilting of Records for (Applicant) he is writing to have his records untitled so hecan be reinstated to the Fiscal Year 2016 SGM Promotion List. a.Six months after he was selected to the Fiscal Year 2016 SGM Promotion List,he was notified of the Army STAB. He was understandably frustrated and disappointed since the GOMOR from 2005 was placed in the restricted folder of his AMHRR. b.The noise complaints from 2003 and 2007 did not result in any Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice action or reprimand. c.He received letters of recommendation addressing his character as a senior NCOand recommending his retention on the promotion list. d.He successfully completed the JSOFSEA with a 94.7 percent grade pointaverage. e.He has held positions of responsibility above his rank. He is currently the J-5SGM for Special Operations Command Africa. f.He has worked hard his entire military career to be a good Special Forces Soldier,husband, and father. 2.He was serving in the Regular Army in the rank/grade staff sergeant/E-6 at the timehe became the subject of a Military Police Report (MPR). 3.The DA Form 3975 (Military Police Report) and DA Form 3975-1 (Military PoliceReport – Additional Offenses), dated 24 July 2005, show he was cited for the offensesof "Verbal Altercation (Domestic)" and "Wrongful Damaging of Government Property."Section VII (Narrative) of the DA Form 3975 states: a.The applicant and his spouse were involved in a verbal altercation. During thealtercation, the applicant was locked outside of his house and attempted to gain access to the quarters through the front door, causing damage to the front door. There was no physical altercation between the applicant and his spouse. b.The applicant stated he did not recall the event due to his high level ofintoxication. c.The Staff Judge Advocate opined there was sufficient evidence to title theapplicant with the offenses. 4.Block 10a (Commander's Remarks) of the DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report ofDisciplinary or Administrative Action), dated 24 July 2004, states no action was takenbecause the applicant executed a permanent change of station. 5.The DA Form 4833, dated 26 February 2005, and DA Form 3975, dated 27 February2005, show the applicant was cited for the offense of "Driving while Impaired." 6.On 11 March 2005, the Commanding General, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy SpecialWarfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC, reprimanded him in writing for his flagrantdisregard for the law and safety of his fellow Soldiers and the general public. He wasarrested for driving a motor vehicle on 26 February 2005 when his blood alcohol contentwas .17 percent. 7.On 22 March 2005, he requested filing the GOMOR locally, stating: .he acknowledged that what he did was wrong .he has been a leader for 4 years and has had to punish Soldiers for the sameoffense .he would like to stay in the course and continue his journey toward the greenberet .his track record through this course so far is outstanding 8.On 18 April 2005, the Commanding General, having reviewed the supportingdocuments and considered the circumstances surrounding the incident, determined theGOMOR would be filed permanently in the applicant's AMHRR. 9.He was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 effective 1 March 2006. 10.The DA Form 3975, dated 26 May 2007, shows he was cited for the offense of"Communications Incidents – Communicating a Threat (Other than Telephone)."Section VII (Narrative) states the investigation revealed the applicant communicated athreat to Staff Sergeant S____ who responded to a noise complaint by stating, "I'mgoing to kill you, if I ever see you out of uniform you are dead." The applicant wasapprehended, transported to the Provost Marshal Office, advised of his rights, chargedon a DA Form 3975, and released to his unit. 11.On 14 October 2009, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Boardgranted the applicant's request to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of hisAMHRR. The board determined that given the elapsed time since receipt of theGOMOR, his solid performance of duty, and the lack of any further derogatoryinformation in his official record, it appeared the intent of the GOMOR had been servedand it would be in the best interest of the Army to transfer it to the restricted folder of hisAMHRR. 12.He was promoted to master sergeant/E-8 effective 1 January 2011. 13.His NCOER covering the period 1 June 2015 through 31 May 2016 shows in: a.Part III (Duty Description), he was serving as the J-3 Regional Operations NCO inCharge; b.Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, andCompetencies), he was rated "FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD" in all five competencies. He was rated "FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD" for Overall Performance and his rater commented: .my number 1 of 11 Joint E8s, a top 1% NCO .already performs the duties and responsibilities of a Sergeant Majorflawlessly .unprecedented understanding and ability to lead in the joint, multinational,and inter agency environment c.Part V (Senior Rater Overall Potential), he was rated "MOST QUALIFIED" andhis senior rater commented: "[Applicant] is my number 2 of 41 E8s assigned to my organization…Promote immediately and well ahead of peers; a definite must-select for Bn [battalion] CSM [command sergeant major], he is ready to serve as an SF [special forces] CO [company] SGM now." 14.On 12 December 2016, the Commanding General, Special Operations CommandCentral, congratulated the applicant on his well-deserved selection for promotion toSGM and stated, "This is a direct reflection of the potential the U.S. Army sees in you aswell as the hard work and dedication you have shown." 15.His NCOER covering the period 1 June 2016 through 31 May 2017 shows in: a.Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, andCompetencies), he was rated "FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD" for Overall Performance and his rater commented: .my number 1 of 9 Joint E8s, a top 1% NCO .already performs the duties and responsibilities of a Sergeant Majorflawlessly .unprecedented understanding and ability to lead in the joint, multinational,and inter agency environment b.Part V (Senior Rater Overall Potential), he was rated "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" andhis senior rater commented: "[Applicant] is my number 2 of 12 E8s. [Applicant] has clearly shown his potential to serve at the E9 level, continue to groom for higher levels of responsibility…" 16.On 10 August 2017, HRC notified the applicant of the Headquarters, Department ofthe Army, STAB's recommendation and the Director of Military PersonnelManagement's approval to remove him from the Fiscal Year 2016 SGM Training andSelection Board List. 17.On 15 February 2018, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal forexceptionally meritorious service during the period 10 June 2015 through 15 June 2018. 18.On 15 March 2018, he completed the JSOFSEA. His DA Form 1059 shows hisacademic average as 93.93 percent and he was rated "SUPERIOR" in three of fivedemonstrated abilities. 19.His NCOER covering the period 1 June 2017 through 31 May 2018 shows in: a.Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, andCompetencies), he was rated "EXCEEDED STANDARD" for Overall Performance and his rater commented: .my number 1 of 9 Joint E8s, a top 1% NCO .already performs the duties and responsibilities of a Sergeant Majorflawlessly .unprecedented understanding and ability to lead in the joint, multinational,and inter agency environment b.Part V (Senior Rater Overall Potential), he was rated "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" andhis senior rater commented: "[Applicant] is my number 3 of 15 MSGs [master sergeants] that I currently rate. [Applicant] has shown outstanding potential to serve at the E9 level, graduating the Joint Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Academy this rated period. Continue to place in higher levels of responsibility in SOF [Special Operations Forces]…" 20.On 12 March 2019, HRC rendered an advisory opinion regarding the applicant'sreinstatement to the Fiscal Year 2016 Active Component SGM Promotion List andpromotion to SGM, wherein the Chief, Department of the Army Promotions Branch,stated: a.After a review of his application for reinstatement, the HRC Promotion Branchdetermined administrative relief is not warranted and unsubstantiated. b.The Army Senior Enlisted Review Board determined he had possibledisqualifying derogatory information in the form of three MPRs, dated July 2004, February 2005, and May 2007, and a GOMOR, dated March 2005. c.The Standby Advisory Board was conducted in June 2017. The board weighedthe derogatory information along with the rest of his file and determined the seriousness of the information could or would negatively affect his ability to serve in positions of greater responsibility. 21.His NCOER covering the period 1 June 2018 through 28 June 2019 shows in: a.Part III (Duty Description), he was serving as the J-5 Senior Enlisted Advisor, aSGM position; b.Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, andCompetencies), he was rated "EXCEEDED STANDARD" for Overall Performance and his rater commented: .superior mature team builder whose expertise and dedication to thecommand mission is highly valued .unprecedented understanding and ability to lead in the joint, multinational,and interagency environment c.Part V (Senior Rater Overall Potential), he was rated "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" andhis senior rater commented: "[Applicant] has performed exceptionally well as a Directorate SEA [Senior Enlisted Advisor] on the staff of this Theater Special Operations Command…Select for SGM now and position as a Special Forces Company SGM." 22.On 11 September 2019, the applicant responded to the HRC advisory opinion,stating: a.Over the course of his 20 years of service in the U.S. Army, the only negativemark in his record is a driving under the influence of alcohol offense from February 2005 when he was a young staff sergeant. b.His records clearly demonstrate the character of his service over the last14 years, succinctly shown through three successive promotions and ultimately his selection for service as an SGM. c.As noted in his NCOERs, SRB, DA Form 1059 from JSOFSEA, and a letter fromLieutenant General R____, he has served with distinction, both in and out of combat. 23.The USACIDC responded to the applicant's request to correct his information intheir files received on 2 October 2019. The applicant was advised that the informationhe provided did not constitute as new or relevant information needed to amend thereport; therefore, his request was denied. He was further advised that he hadexhausted remedies to correct information contained in his USACIDC record throughtheir agency. To appeal this denial, he may apply to the ABCMR. 24.His Enlisted Record Brief, dated 18 September 2019, shows he had multipledeployments to Afghanistan and he was awarded or authorized the: .Bronze Star Medal (3rd Award) .Purple Heart .Defense Meritorious Service Medal .Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Award) .Army Commendation Medal (4th Award) .Army Achievement Medal .Joint Meritorious Unit Citation .Meritorious Unit Citation .Army Good Conduct Medal (7th Award) .Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two Campaign Stars .National Defense Service Medal .Global War on Terrorism Service Medal .Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal .NCO Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 3 .Army Service Ribbon .Overseas Service Ribbon .Special Forces Tab .Combat Infantryman Badge .Expert Infantryman Badge .Master Parachutist Badge BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board foundinsufficient evidence to support a recommendation to remove the applicant's name fromthe title block of the CID ROI in question or to remove the GOMOR from his record. a.The Board noted that the governing regulation states requests to delete aperson's name from the title block of a CID ROI will be granted only if it is determined that there is not probable cause to believe that the individual committed the offense for which he or she is listed as a subject. The Board found insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there was not probable cause to believe he committed the offense for which he was listed as a subject. By a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined the presence of his name in the title block of a CID ROI is not in error or unjust. b.The Board noted the applicant's GOMOR has already been transferred to therestricted folder of his AMHRR. The Board found this transfer to be the appropriate disposition of the GOMOR and determined no further relief is warranted. 2.A majority of the Board concluded that the evidence in this case did not supportremoving the applicant from the Fiscal Year 2016 SGM Promotion List. The majorityconcluded his outstanding duty performance over many years should be given moreweight than the derogatory information in his record, and determined it would beappropriate to reinstatement him to the promotion list. 3.The member in the minority concurred with the Standby Advisory Board'sdetermination that the derogatory information in his record could or would negativelyaffect his ability to serve in positions of greater responsibility. The minority memberdetermined a preponderance of the evidence did not show an error or injustice in theremoval of his name from the Fiscal Year 2016 SGM Promotion List. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : :XXX :XXX GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1.The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant arecommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that allDepartment of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reinstatingthe applicant to the Fiscal Year 2016 Sergeant Major Promotion List. 2.The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant aportion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much ofthe application that pertains to any relief in excess of that described above. X CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//