IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 5 January 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007628


APPLICANT REQUESTS, in effect, a telephonic/video appearance before the board 
and reconsideration of his previous request to:

*	upgrade his bad conduct characterization of service to honorable
*	change his narrative reason for separation to secretarial authority, with 
appropriate separation program designator
*	change his reentry (RE) code to RE-1 (qualified for enlistment)

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214
*	legal brief
*	character references (25)
*	academic records
*	service records

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20210010934 on 1 February 2022.

2.  Counsel states, in effect:

   a.  The applicant was unjustly and erroneously separated from the U.S. Army with a 
bad conduct (BCD). The applicant seeks to remedy this injustice through the ABCMR. 
The applicant wishes this petition to be reviewed and in the interest of equity, fairness, 
and justice, and that the requested relief be granted. The applicant's discharge was 
inequitable and has served its purpose.

	b.  The appeal is based on three errors (1) the underlying basis of his separation 
was procedurally defective at the time of discharge (2) the applicant should receive 
clemency and (3) the discharge, is inequitable now.
	c.  By statute Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, the Secretary of the Army is 
authorized to correct errors or remove injustices from any military record of their 
respective service. Not only is the Secretary authorized, he is also obligated, not only to 
properly determine the nature of any error or injustice, but also to take such corrective 
action as will appropriately and fully erase such error or compensate such injustice. To 
conduct this review, the Secretary has adopted regulation Title 32, Combined Federal 
Regulation (CFR), Section 865.100 establishing the BCMR. When a correction board 
fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in 
violation of its mandate. The Secretary and his boards have an abiding moral sanction 
to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take 
steps to grant thorough and fitting relief, Roth v. United States. Federal Courts review 
final decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), Baker v. Department of 
Marine Corps. Congress exercises oversight functions for the Discharge Review Boards 
(DRB) and Congress requires that the Boards properly exercise their function. To help 
ensure the independence of the DRBs in the exercise of their responsibilities, Congress 
mandated the Boards have independent legal and medical advisors. To ensure this 
process is transparent, Congress mandated that the Board disclose virtually ALL 
communications with anyone outside the Agency to the applicant if that communication 
pertains directly to the applicant's case or has a material effect on the applicant's case. 
The Board does not engage in a "de novo" review of the applicant's discharge, Van 
Bourg v. Nitze. The BCMR will grant a discharge upgrade based upon Propriety, Equity, 
and an Injustice. The applicant carries the burden of proof in demonstrating by a 
preponderance of the evidence the discharge was improper or inequitable. In order to 
prove inequity or impropriety, the applicant must overcome the presumption of regularity 
in the conduct of governmental affairs. This is a rebuttable presumption, but the burden 
is on the applicant to provide substantial credible evidence of a divergence from that 
regularity. Inequity exists when the discharge was inconsistent with disciplinary 
standards at the time, or when the quality of the member's service and capability to 
perform military service make the discharge unfair. Factors for consideration of the 
quality of service include the service member's ranks, awards and decorations, letters of 
commendation or reprimand, combat service, acts of merit, length of service, prior 
military service, courts martial and other forms of discipline, and records of unauthorized 
absence. The Board is required to "examine the relevant data and articulate a 
satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts 
found and the choice made", and the APA, "sets forth the full extent of judicial authority 
to review executive agency action for procedural correctness", FCC. v. Fox Television 
Stations, Inc. In addition, the APA requires the Court to hold "unlawful and set aside" 
any Board action, findings, or conclusions that are, "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law", Kreis v. Secretary of Army, see 
also Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 706(2(A). The Secretary of the Army has adopted the 
procedures directed by Title 32, CFR, Sections 865.100 - 865.126, which govern the 
Boards activities. The chair of the Board is directed to ensure that the applicant receives 
a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and to certify the record of the proceedings. The 
Board members are instructed to review all applications that are properly before them to 
determine the existence of error or injustice, and if persuaded that material error or 
injustice exists, to direct changes in military records to correct the error.

   d.  When the statute or governing regulation refers to "errors" they are referring to 
factual or legal errors that can disadvantage a service member. The Board's objective is 
to examine the PROPRIETY and EQUITY of the applicant's discharge and to effect 
changes if an injustice exists. The standard of review and the underlying factors which 
aid in determining whether the standards are met shall be historically consistent with 
criteria for determining honorable service. Equity considerations include an evaluation of 
matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores whether the individual met 
normal military standards of acceptable behavior. Impropriety may be found when a 
prejudicial error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion occurred. Impropriety may also be 
found if an expressly retroactive and favorable change in law or policy has been made.

   e.  In addition, under the Guidance of the former Secretary of Defense, (Hagel 
Memorandum), the Board has extensive directives related to post-traumatic disorder 
(PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). These issues should be granted liberal 
considerations before the Boards, especially when they are service connected.

   f.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing 
guidance to the Board for Correction of Army Records (Secretary Hagel Memo) as it 
considers petitions brought by veterans claiming PTSD with other than honorable 
conditions discharge. This includes a comprehensive review of all materials and 
evidence provided by the applicant. A memorandum providing further clarifying 
guidance was issued on 25 August 2017, by the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R Memorandum). This policy guidance is intended 
to ease the application process for veterans who are seeking redress and assists the 
Board in reaching fair and consistent results in these cases. The guidance also 
mandates liberal waivers of time limits, ensures timely consideration of petitions, and 
allows for increased involvement of medical personnel in Board determinations.

   g.  The applicant requests that this derogatory information be removed from his 
record. The applicant asks that this appeal through the ABCMR be given the utmost 
scrutiny. The success of the appeal and future actions by the ABCMR will have a 
significant impact on his ability to receive proper benefits and recognition. The applicant 
will continue to fight this derogatory information up through the Secretary of the Army.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 2015. The highest grade 
he held was private first class/E-3.

5.  The applicant is listed as a subject of an investigation recorded on a Law 
Enforcement Report (LER) (1st Corrected Final), dated 23 January 2017. This report 
shows the applicant was investigated by the Fort Campbell Provost Marshall Office for 
the offense of assault consummated by battery against his spouse on four occasions 
between 23 January 2015 to 10 September 2016. The result of the investigation was a 
protective order.

6.  A Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification Record, dated 7 April 2017, captured 
the same information found in the LER listed above. In addition, this form shows the 
applicant was referred for counseling/concern related to drugs and alcohol, family 
advocacy, and mental health.

7.  On 1 January 2018, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial that 
convened at Fort Campbell, KY. General Court-Martial Order Number 19, issued by 
Headquarters, Fort Campbell, KY, dated 8 August 2018, is not available for review.

8.  On 8 August 2018:

   a.  The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), Fort Campbell, KY made a recommendation in 
the applicant's General Court-Martial (GCM). The recommendation was presented in an 
addendum which shows the applicant and his counsel each submitted one-page 
memorandums for consideration. The applicant's counsel made no claims of legal error. 
The applicant, through his counsel, requested "for his conviction to be vacated." 
Additionally, the applicant and his counsel requested the Commander, Fort Campbell, 
KY, consider a lesser punishment, so that his reputation would not be sullied as he 
moved on in life. The SJA found clemency was not warranted and recommended the 
sentence be approved, except for the part of the sentence extending to a BCD, and the 
commander order the sentence executed.

   b.  Having considered the Result of Trial, SJA recommendation, matters submitted 
by the applicant and his counsel, and the Record of Trial, the GCM convening authority 
approved the SJA's recommendation.

   c.  The GCM convening authority approved the sentence and except for the BCD, 
order the sentence executed.

9.  On 19 December 2018, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals made 
administrative corrections related to the location of one offense and changed the date 
the sentence was adjudged to 31 January 2018.

10.  GCM Order Number 74, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Fires Center of 
Excellence and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK on 31 May 2019, directed, the sentence having 
been finally affirmed (as corrected by U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals Notice of 
Court-Martial Order Correction, dated 19 December 2018), and Article71(c) of the 
UCMJ having been complied with, the BCD portion of the sentence be executed.
11.  The applicant was discharged on 14 June 2019, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative 
Separation), Chapter 3, as a result of court-martial. His DD Form 214 shows he was 
credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 6 days of net active service this period. His 
DD Form 214 contains the following entries in:

*	Item 18 (Remarks) – Member has not completed first full term of service
*	Item 24 (Character of Service) – Bad Conduct
*	Item 25 (Separation Authority) – AR 635-200, Chapter 3
*	Item 26 (Separation Code) – JJD
*	Item 27 (Reentry Code) – 4
*	Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Court-Martial

12.  The applicant did not provide medical records showing a diagnosis of or treatment 
for a behavioral health condition.

13.  The applicant provides:

	a.  Character References from friends, family, and coworkers which attest to the 
applicant's positive attitude, work ethic, integrity, community service, professionalism, 
character, and love of music. These references show the applicant worked as a car 
salesman, a deputy sheriff, and he was pursuing a career in healthcare.

   b.  Service records, academic records, and volunteer documents which include 
enlistment contracts, military orders, training certificates, college transcripts, community 
service hours, security clearance application, entrance physical examination, a birth 
certificate, and marriage certificate (several duplicate documents). 

14.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the 
judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 1552, the authority under 
which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, 
it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial 
process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act 
of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.

15.  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. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or 
request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing.



16.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting, through counsel, 
reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge 
(BCD) to honorable, change of narrative reason for separation to secretarial authority, 
and change of his reentry code to RE-1.  The applicant contends, through counsel, that 
he was erroneously separated from the Army with a BCD, that the discharge was 
inequitable and has served its purpose. 

    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following. 1) The 
applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 9 November 2015. 2) A Law Enforcement 
Report dated 23 January 2017 shows the applicant was investigated by the Fort 
Campbell Provost Marshall’s Office for assault and battery against his wife on 4 
occasions between 23 January 2015 and 10 September 2016. 3) On 1 January 2018, 
the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial that convened at Fort Campbell, 
KY. 4) He was discharged on 14 June 2019, under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, Chapter 3, as a result of court-martial.             

    c.  The electronic military medical (AHLTA), VA electronic medical record (JLV), and 
the ROP were reviewed.  A review of AHLTA showed the applicant had a significant 
history of BH, FAP, and ASAP treatment during his time in service. A review of the 
records showed significant overlap in the treatment timeline across the three clinics. In 
an effort to ensure the reader can more easily following the treatment delivered within 
each clinic, the writer detailed treatment and timeline under the following heading:   
EBH-1, FAP, ASAP.

   EBH-1
Records suggest the applicant first engaged for BH-treatment at the Fort Campbell, 
KY, EBH-1 clinic on 17 May 2016 for a BH-triage visit.  The applicant reported 
“probably struggling with anxiety and depression for most of [his] life” but reported 
today because he and his wife thought it best.  He reported depressed mood, 
irritability, worry, excessive sleep, anger, and marital discord.  He was diagnosed 
with Irritability and Anger and scheduled for an intake.  During the intake 
appointment on 31 May 2016 complained of marital discord, a belief that his wife lies 
to him and hides things from him, and that being with her magnifies his symptoms.  
He also reported chronic lower back pain and concerns regarding meeting physical 
fitness demands.  He was diagnosed with Adjustment disorder with depressed mood 
and Marital Discord, and scheduled outpatient treatment.  Between 31 and 8 August 
2016 the applicant attended three BH follow up appointments (11 July 2016, 4 
August 2016, 8 August 2016).  During the 11 July 2016 encounter he complained of 
low mood, no energy, sleep problems, anhedonia, and isolation. He noted the 
symptoms increased over the past week and were associated with his wife moving 
back to Georgia and threatening to divorce him.  During the 4 August 2016 
encounter he reported his wife had returned and “things are bad”.  He contended 
that he involved his command as his wife was “messed up”.  He reported not being 
sure if he wanted to remain in the marriage.  During his 8 August 2016 encounter the 
applicant reported improved mood and reduced symptoms he and his wife had 
reportedly improved communications and she agreed to find employment, which 
would help relieve financial stressors.  The applicant next engagement in the EBH-1 
clinic was on 23 January 2017, after being informed he was under investigation for 
claims of domestic violence (DV).  He contended being wrongly accused and 
reported increased stress and anxiety related to the investigation.  On 8 February 
2017 the was referred to the Partial Hospitalization Program at Cumberland Hall, 
after telling his treating provider the applicant was becoming overwhelmed by the 
circumstances.  He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation.  The applicant remained 
in treatment at the EBH-1 and PHP program through 24 January 2018.  His active 
diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder and Other Specified Problems Related to 
Psychosocial Circumstances.   

FAP
Records show that the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) received a report on or 
about 1 December 2016 related to the applicant being the accused of a domestic 
abuse situation.  The applicant’s command was notified on 2 December 2016 and 
the FAP intake was scheduled for 5 December 2016.  The 5 December intake did 
not contain the specific of the incident that led to the referral, however, a review of 
the ROP showed the applicant’s wife filed her initial statement to the Fort Campbell 
Provost Marshall’s Office, alleging domestic abuse, during the same timeframe.  The 
applicant attended FAP individual and group sessions between 5 December 2016 
and 14 November 2017, at which time the FAP case was closed.  It should be noted 
that throughout FAP treatment the applicant denied allegations of abuse, while 
simultaneously stating that the text and email messages his wife provided as 
evidence were only made public after he refused to provide her 1000 dollars to start 
a home-based business.  The working diagnosis during the period of FAP 
engagement was Other Specified Problems Related to Psychosocial Circumstances.   

ASAP
The applicant self-referred to ASAP on 6 January 2017 and reported concerns of 
increased alcohol consumption since September 2016.  He reported drinking when 
lonely and to get rid of negative thoughts, like his current marital situation.  He 
reported consuming 3 to 4 drinks several times per week, with a maximum 
consumption of 6 during any one occasion.  He was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse, 
uncomplicated and was enrolled into ASAP.  The applicant attended weekly 
individual and group sessions through 9 May 2017.  His ASAP enrollment was 
considered successful upon termination and his progress was noted as fair, with a 
recommendation to retain. His terminating diagnosis was Alcohol Abuse, mild.

    d.  A review of JLV was void of the applicant receiving any treatment at the VA and 
he does not have a service-connected disability.  

    e.  The applicant contends, through counsel, that he was unjustly and erroneously 
separated from the U.S. Army with. A review of the evidence does not support this 
contention.  Records show the applicant was found guilty by general-court martial for 
physical abuse of his spouse and summarily discharged under provisions of AR 635 – 
200, Chapter 3, as a result of court-martial.  Although the applicant had BH-related 
diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Other Specified Psychosocial 
Circumstances, assault is not natural sequela of either diagnosis and does not mitigate 
his misconduct.  After reviewing the available evidence, it is the opinion of this advisor 
that the applicant’s separation was proper and equitable. 

Kurta Questions:

1.	Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes.  The applicant had diagnoses of 
Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Other Specified Psychosocial 
Circumstances

2.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. 

3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
No.  Records show the applicant was found guilty by general-court martial for 
physical abuse of his spouse and summarily discharged under provisions of 
AR 635 – 200, Chapter 3, as a result of court-martial.  Although the applicant 
had BH-related diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Other 
Specified Psychosocial Circumstances, assault is not a natural sequela of the 
diagnoses and neither diagnosis affects an individual’s ability to distinguish 
between right and wrong and adhere the right.  As such the diagnoses do not 
mitigate the applicant’s misconduct. After a review of the available evidence, 
it is the opinion of this advisor that the separation characterization was proper 
and equitable.



BOARD DISCUSSION:

The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense 
guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered 
the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his 
misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's 
mental health claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA Medical Advisor. The 
Board found the evidence of post-service achievements and letters of reference 
provided by the applicant insufficient in support of a clemency determination. The Board 
found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the 
conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his misconduct not being mitigated 
by a mental health condition.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board 
determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in 
error or unjust.  


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 that the overall merits of this case are 
insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number 
AR20210010934 on 1 February 2022.
	 
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, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (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.  Army Regulation (AR) 601-210 (Personnel Procurement-Regular Army and Reserve 
Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for 
enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army 
National Guard. Table 3-1 provides a list of RE codes.

*	RE code "1" applies to persons completing their term of active service, who are 
considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army, qualified for enlistment if all other 
criteria are met
*	RE code "2" is no longer in use but applied to Soldiers separated for the 
convenience of the government, when reenlistment is not contemplated, who are 
fully qualified for enlistment/reenlistment
*	RE code "3" applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry 
or continuous service at time of separation, whose disqualification is waivable – 
they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted
*	RE code "4" applies to persons separated from last period of service with a non-
waivable disqualification; ineligible for enlistment

3.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific 
authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, 
and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. At the time, this regulation 
prescribed the separation code "JJD" as the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers 
separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, based on court-martial. Additionally, the 
SPD/Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code Cross Reference Table established RE code "4" as 
the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under this authority and for this 
reason.

4.  AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Active Duty Enlisted Administrative 
Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 

	a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to 
benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality 
of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other 
characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	b.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. 
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 3 provided that an enlisted person would be given a BCD pursuant only 
to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial, after completion of 
appellate review, and after such affirmed sentence has been ordered duly executed.

5.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the 
judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 1552, the authority under 
which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, 
it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial 
process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act 
of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency 
generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records 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, 
which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.

	a.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining 
whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards 
shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy 
changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, 
official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, 
and uniformity of punishment.

	b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.

7.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, 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.  AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military 
records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR will 
decide cases on the evidence of record. The applicant has the burden of proof. The 
Board is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or 
request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220007628


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1