IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 September 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210017151 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect: * her disability rating increased to 100 percent * a physical disability retirement * a personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), 2 August 1991 * three (3) Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Health Record - Chronological Record of Medical Care) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); 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 she was operated on in a war zone during the Gulf War and was medically evacuated to Germany before going to Fort Carson. The Army released her with severance pay and she had to fight for over 20 years for 100 percent. She has had 6 operations. This was an injustice and has caused undue hardship and stress. She was put on [undesirable] details after she filed a complaint for sexual harassment, and a sergeant tried to sexually assault her but she threatened him with a weapon. 3. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 14 February 1990 for a period of 8 years in the delayed entry program (DEP). She was discharged from the DEP enlisting in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 9 May 1990. 4. The applicant was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Specialist) on 14 September 1990. She was assigned to Fort Carson effective 24 September 1990. 5. The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she transferred to Saudi Arabia effective 20 October 1990. 6. A SF 600 shows the applicant was seen on 1 February 1991, by the 86th Evacuation Hospital for lower back pain. A second SF 600 shows she was seen again for lower back pain on 17 February 1991. 7. The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows she left Saudi Arabia effective 15 March 1991. 8. A third SF 600, dated April 1991, shows an entry for a follow up appointment stating the applicant underwent repair of a hernia 2 months ago in Saudi Arabia and indicated she continued to have lower back pain. 9. The applicant’s record does not contain her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings. However, it does contain an undated MEB Consultation from Evans Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, CO. It shows: a. Chief Complaint: Low back pain. b. History of Present Illness: [The applicant] was deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1990. Approximately January 1991 she was filling sandbags. Due to lifting she developed back pain with associated shooting pain in her right leg. Also, while in Saudi Arabia, she had an incarcerated hernia, right side, which was surgically decompressed. After this surgery she noticed a burning and numbness to the right hip area, which continues. Further questioning reveals the back pain is worse with running and worse at night. She has not pain coughing or sneezing. She has not had any loss of bowel or bladder control. Currently she is treated for recurrent urinary tract infections by urology at Fort Carson. Orthopedic examination of the lumbar spine: she has a normal gait. Palpitation of C1 through S1 reveals generalized tenderness approximately T7. She is tender L4-L5 in the midline. Range of motion, flexion and toe touching: she is able to toe touch lateral bending is 15 degrees left and right. Hyperextension 15 degrees in lordosis. Straight leg raising: sitting and supine is 90 degrees with pain referred to the low back. Hips: range of motion: she flexes and extends both hips fully without difficulty. Internal/external rotation: normal. Knees: full active range of motion. Ankles: full active range of motion. Motor strength: lower extremities - ankles 5/5; extensor hallucis longus 5/5. Dermatomes: loss of light touch sensation overlying the grater trochanter of the right hip. Pulses: dorsalis pedis, posterior tibial, are of equal intensity and duration. c. Laboratory Data: CT of the lumbar spine was performed 21 October 1991: revealed diffuse posterior bulge at the L4-5 and L5-S1 disk spaces without focal herniation. No nerve root impingement is visualized. Sclerotic pedicles L5 consistent with stress related changes. Routine lumbosacral spine films 19 April 1991: vertebrae normal in height, position. alignment with well-maintained interspace. There is no evidence of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. d. Assessment: Chronic low back pain. e. Present Status/Prognosis: Condition has been ongoing for approximately eighteen to twenty months. Back pain is not severe when patient limits activities namely sit-ups and running. f. Recommendation: She be presented to the PEB for consideration of medical separation. It is in the best interest of the individual and the Army that she be released from active duty. 10. Orders 000053-903, dated 22 February 1993, show the applicant was reassigned for transition processing effective 4 March 1993. It also states she paid severance pay in the amount of $6,382.80. Disability rating of 20 percent. 11. The applicant was honorably discharged on 4 March 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(3) for physical disability with severance pay. 12. The applicant provided: a. A SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) dated 2 August 1991 showing she underwent a medical examination for the purpose of demobilization from Southwest Asia. It notes her hernia repair, right shoulder pain, lower back pain, and numbness in her right upper thigh. She was found qualified for retention. Her physical profile shows 113111. A physical profile is derived using six body systems: "P" = physical capacity or stamina; "U" = upper extremities; "L" = lower extremities; "H" = hearing; "E" = eyes; and "S" = psychiatric (abbreviated as PULHES). Each body system has a numerical designation: 1 meaning a high level of fitness; 2 indicates some activity limitations are warranted, 3 reflects significant limitations, and 4 reflects one or more medical conditions of such a severity that performance of military duties must be drastically limited. Physical profile ratings can be either permanent or temporary. b. A SF 600, dated 11 March 1992, showing the applicant experienced a miscarriage and requested follow up treatment. c. A SF 600 showing the applicant was seen for low back pain on 13 July 1992 and 23 July 1992. d. A SF 600 showing the applicant was seen for knee pain. 13. On 25 May 2022, ARBA requested a for sanitized Report of Investigation (ROI) and/or Military Police Report (MPR) from the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) pertaining to the applicant’s statement regarding sexual harassment and attempted sexual assault. On 7 June 2022, CID responded a search of the Army criminal file indexes revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. 14. 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. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 15. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 16. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 17. Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. 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. 18. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents, the Record of Proceedings (ROP), and the applicant's records in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), the Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) and the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant was separated with severance pay. She would like to receive 100% from the Army as she is receiving from the VA. She also claims sexual harassment. a. The applicant was discharged under provisions of AR 635-40 para 4-24B(3) for physical disability and given severance pay at 20% for Chronic Low Back Pain. The undated MEB NARSUM indicated that she injured her back while deployed in Saudi Arabia. She developed shooting pain in the right leg. The back pain was worse with running and at night. By the time of the MEB, the back pain was not severe when she limited running and sit-ups. The exam showed normal gait. She had generalized tenderness C1 through S1, and the spine was tender at L4-L5. She was able to touch her toes; right and left lateral bending was to 15 degrees (normal is to 30 degrees); the knees had full ROM. The applicant was referred for a PEB for Chronic Low Back Pain. (1) 01Feb1991 86th Evac Hosp. She was seen for low back pain of 3-4 weeks duration after lifting/moving equipment. The low back pain was accompanied by pain radiation from the buttocks, thigh and knee. There were also paresthesias in the right medial toes and feet. The exam showed decreased lumbar spine ROM. The right straight leg raise test was positive. The motor exam was intact and deep tendon reflexes were 2/2 (normal). There was decreased right extremity sensation at L5. Impression: Right Lower Extremity Sciatica due to Probable Disc Bulge at L4-L5 with Mild Radiculopathy. The plan was conservative treatment. Follow up visit of 17Feb1991 showed the condition had not responded to muscle relaxants. She was treated with further conservative measures: Bed rest for 3 days followed by light duty for 5 days and Motrin. (2) The 02Aug1991 Report of Medical Exam (SWA demobilization) showed summary of defects: Right Hernia Repair (February 1991) with midline abdominal scar; Right Lateral Proximal (upper) Thigh Numbness since surgery; Right Shoulder Pain with lifting for 2 months; and Dysuria (pain or discomfort with urination). Of particular note, she had Lower Back Pain for 7 months. There was forward flexion to 90 degrees (90 degrees is normal). She was given an L3; and was deemed qualified for retention at that point (the back pain duration was less than one year). (3) October 1991 CT scan of lumbar spine showed diffuse posterior bulge of L4-5, L5-S1 without focal herniation, and there was no impingement. (4) 23Jul1992 Orthopedic Clinic Note. Chronic Low Back Pain due to Disc Disease at L5-S1. Deep tendon reflexes were 2+ at the knee and ankle. Extensor hallucis longus muscle (in the lower leg) strength was 5/5 (normal). (5) 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam showed lumbar spine with full ROM, except backward extension was to 15 degrees (normal is to 30 degrees). There was no upper/lower extremity weakness. (6) 18Mar2004 EMG showed no evidence of lumbosacral radiculopathy. (7) 07Dec2016 Back Conditions DBQ (over 20 years after discharge). The applicant indicated that she underwent a L5-S1 laminectomy and fusion 30Jun2011. Since the surgery, she had developed a left foot drop and left lower extremity pain running down the left thigh and calf and into the great toe (01Dec2011 Orthopedic Note). She had a spinal cord stimulator placed in 2013 and removal of the spinal cord stimulator in 2015. b. In addition to the Chronic Low Back Pain, several other conditions were reviewed during the November 1992 MEB and 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam detailed below. (1) Knee Conditions. 08Dec1992 Orthopedic Clinic, the applicant was diagnosed with Genu Recurvatum Bilateral and Patellofemoral Syndrome. The applicant reported that her knees became numb after running. Both knees had full ROM. There was no knee effusion. There was no joint laxity. There was positive grind and positive medical facet tenderness. Genu Recurvatum is a developmental condition in which the knee hyperextends (or bends backwards). The condition was determined to have existed prior to service (EPTS). Knee pain was not mentioned in the MEB Consultation. The exam showed full knee ROM and normal strength. At the time of the 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam, residuals of the 18Jun1991 right knee strain were not shown during the exam. (2) Right Inguinal Hernia Repair. The 19Apr1991 General Surgery Clinic Note documented repair of her incarcerated hernia while in Saudi Arabia, 2 months prior. The abdominal scar was well healed, and the abdomen was not distended or tender. She generally appeared to be recovering well. During the 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam, the applicant reported a bulge that was still apparent when she lifted weights. However, the VA exam showed no hernia was present. (3) Urinary Tract Infection, Recurrent. During the MEB Consultation, it was documented that the applicant was being treated for recurrent UTIs. During the 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam, it was indicated that the applicant specifically denied chronic residuals of UTIs. In the 07Dec2016 Hernia DBQ, the applicant reported that during right inguinal hernia repair and mesh placement in 1991, she sustained trauma to her bladder. After which, she had recurrent UTIs, as well as sharp intermittent pain which radiated into her abdomen, groin, and right lower extremity. She reported several urinary tract infections per year. She reported taking suppression therapy (antibiotics) for 6 months in 1992. Long term antibiotics in order to prevent her UTIs was being considered again. There was no indication that her UTIs were not responsive to treatment (antibiotics). (4) Thyroid Disease. In the 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam, the applicant reported a history of a goiter in October 1992. The exam revealed a palpable, uniformly soft isthmus of the thyroid. There was no firm nodularity or irregularity. Symptoms were responsive to medication (e.g., her menstrual cycle became regular). c. MST (Military Sexual Trauma) (1) The applicant was deployed from October 1990 until March 1991. During the 29Apr1993 VA C&P Exam, no psychiatric or personality disorders were found. (2) 02Dec1996 VA C&P exam was completed to rule out PTSD due to Sexual Harassment. While in Saudi Arabia she was pregnant. She terminated the pregnancy due to complications. When she returned, others knew about the termination. The SSG immediately above her, asked about the pregnancy termination; offended, she walked away. She stated that he continued to follow her, touch her, and made a suggestive comment about rolling around with him in his cot. She reported him, and she stated that subsequently, two other Soldiers came forward with charges against the same SSG. Despite this, she stated that no investigation followed, and she continued to be subjected to the SSG’s angry glances and snide remarks. She had to eat meals in her own quarters. After this, she injured her back and she had emergency surgery for the incarcerated hernia. Once discharged from service, she had difficulty adjusting to civilian life. She was brooding about being harassed and the lack of action by Command. She reported having problems with authority figures, difficulty sleeping, not wanting to have sex with her husband, being irritable and having low energy. She had somewhat diminished capacity to enjoy previously significant activities; however, her range of affect did not appear to be severely impacted, and there was no estrangement or detachment from loved ones. She did not report distressing dreams or flashbacks. She was able to watch movies with portrayals of sexual violence without undue distress. It was determined that although she had some elements of PTSD, her condition was best described as Major Depressive Disorder. The diagnosis was the same as previously received from an outside provider. She was working fulltime as an administrator at PPG and she was able to perform her duties without problems. She had no problems carrying out her duties as a mother of 2 children. Her GAF score was 72 (mild symptoms, no more than slight impairment in social or occupational function). d. 13Dec1993 VA Rating Decision showed service connection was granted for Thyroid Disorder 10% disabling (DC 7903); Right Inguinal Hernial Surgery Residuals 0% disabling (DC 7338); and Mechanical Low Back Muscle Strain 0% disabling (DC 5295). Total combined rating was 10%. Some pertinent rating details are summarized below. (1) Concerning the low back pain and the question of accompanying radiculopathy, the VA narrative showed the following: Residuals of Right Leg Sciatica noted 01Feb91, were not shown in 1992 or 1993 reports; 28Oct1990 CT scan showed no nerve root compression or disk herniation; and Both the MEB and VA exams essentially found only subjective complaints. (2) The VA exam found no symptoms from the right inguinal hernia 26Feb1991, and she reportedly denied numbness now. (3) On VA exam the applicant specifically denied chronic residuals of UTIs 26Feb1991 and 23Apr1992. e. JLV search today showed that the applicant was total combined service connected by the VA at 100% for the following: Major Depressive Disorder 70%; Chronic Cystitis 40%; Paralysis of Sciatic Nerve 40%; Paralysis of Sciatic Nerve 20%; Lumbosacral Strain 20%; Hypothyroidism 10%; Paralysis of Ilio-Inguinal Nerve 10%; Scars 0%; and Fallopian Tube, Disease, Injury, or Adhesions 0%. Despite this, at the time of discharge, the lumbar condition was the only condition found to NOT meet retention standards by the MEB as well as found to be unfitting for continued service by the PEB. The PEB rating for the lumbar condition was reviewed and per VASRD review, the condition did not warrant a rating higher than the 20% that was applied. It should be noted that in the 13Dec1993 VA Rating Decision, the Mechanical Low Back Muscle Strain condition was evaluated at 0%. Based on review of available records no change to the MEB/PEB decision is recommended. The applicant did NOT have other medical conditions which failed medical retention standards of AR 40-501 chapter 3. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical advisory the Board concurred with the advising official finding the applicant did not have other medical conditions which failed medical retention standards. No change to the MEB/PEB decision is recommended. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant’s PEB rating for the lumbar condition was reviewed and per VASRD review, the condition did not warrant a rating higher than the 20% that was applied. Based on this, the Board denied relief. 2. The law allows 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 an error or injustice in the Army's rating. Operating under different laws and its own policies, the VA does not have the authority or the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service. 3. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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. 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. Title 10, USC, 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 (Standards of Medical Fitness), 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. Title 38 USC, section 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 4. Title 38 USC, section 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 5. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) 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. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, all disabilities are rated using the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). a. 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. 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. 6. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 7. Section 1556 of Title 10, USC, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 8. 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, 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, on those conditions or experiences. 9. 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. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210017151 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1