IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220008310 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 11 September 2018 to show – * a different separation program designator (SPD) code * a reentry eligibility (RE) code of RE-1 * the narrative reason for separation as "Secretarial Authority" * restoration of his rank/grade to private first class/E-3 * reimbursement of his enlistment bonus of $11,000 * restoration of his pay forfeited as a result of his two DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) * removal of all paperwork/documents related to his misconduct separation from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * a personal appearance hearing before the Board via video or telephone APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * DD Form 214 with Honorable Discharge Certificate, 11 September 2018 * Self-authored Letter, 26 April 2019 * Counsel's Legal Brief in Support of Correction Request, 25 May 2019 * Separation Packet * five Third-Party Character Statements FACTS: 1. The applicant states his desire to have this Board reconsider the Army Discharge Review Board's (ADRB) decision on changing his RE code, SPD code, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. In addition, he requests restoration of his rank, reimbursement of his enlistment bonus of $11,000, reimbursement of his pay forfeited as a result of the nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and removal of all negative paperwork/documents related to the misconduct from his AMHRR (see attachment). 2. Counsel states the ADRB upgraded the applicant's discharge to honorable, but denied his request for an RE code 1 and the narrative reason for separation of "Secretarial Authority." Now the applicant also requests restoration of his rank, reimbursement of a bonus of $11,000, removal or expungement of all negative paperwork related to the misconduct from his AMHRR, and restoration of his pay forfeited as a result of two NJPs. He wishes this petition to be reviewed and in the interest of equity, fairness, and justice, and that the requested relief be granted. a. The applicant wanted to join the military to get out of his hometown and for the educational benefits. He enlisted in the Army on 2 August 2017. He went to basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, SC, and became a human resources specialist. b. The applicant was then assigned to a unit at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. His experience was horrible. While participating in physical training, he injured his lower back while doing deadlifts. He went directly to the medical treatment facility for assessment after the injury. This injury caused him to be in chronic pain from that time forward. They placed him on several medical profiles over the months. c. On or about 14 February 2018, the applicant failed to secure his spare M240 machine gun barrel. On or about 12 March 2018, his commander imposed company- grade NJP against him that included forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction for 14 days. In his rebuttal, he said he didn't realize he had forgotten the spare barrel and left it unsecured because he was on muscle relaxers for his injured lower back and the side effects of the drug caused him to be unable to fully function, concentrate, and remember things properly. d. On or about 11 April 2018 while the applicant was in the field, he was told to perform security duty on the roof of a light medium tactical vehicle and man the M240 machine gun. He told them that he was assigned a limited physical profile for his lower back and that he couldn't climb up and man the M240 machine gun for security duty. He pulled out his physical profile rating and showed it to them. They then went to his first sergeant and showed him the applicant's physical profile rating. His first sergeant then proceeded to come up to him, yelling and cussing, "I don't give a f____! I don't care if your back is hurt! Get your a____ up on the vehicle and man the weapon!" He then climbed to the top of the light medium tactical vehicle and the weapon accidentally discharged as he was getting situated. His command issued him field-grade NJP on 11 June 2018. e. One or about 13 August 2018, the applicant's commanding officer completed and submitted a notice requesting his separation under Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b (Pattern of Misconduct), for negligently discharging an M240 machine gun and dereliction of duty for failing to secure a spare M240 machine gun barrel, amongst other complaints of failing to report to his appointed place of duty, written records of counseling, etc. The applicant signed the Acknowledgement of Receipt of Separation Notice on 13 August 2018. f. On or about 15 August 2018, the applicant signed and accepted the Election of Rights Regarding Separation. Procedurally, after he signed the Election of Rights, the command slipped two counseling statements into his elimination packet that were not in the original packet. The statements had no signature in the "Work Performance" section. Instead, they entered, "Late to accountability/IRPT [individual remedial physical training] formation: Soldier refuses to sign." He was unable to rebut this counseling because of this procedural defect. g. The applicant felt the command was inappropriate in the way they selectively treated him. The chain of command in the unit he was assigned to was very unfair and never consistent with punishments. If they preferred one Soldier over another, they would differ in punishment. If there was a Soldier they did not like, they would treat the Soldier like a criminal. This selective punishment was both an Equal Opportunity violation and against command policy. There were a lot of young Soldiers in the unit who committed serious offenses and never got disciplined and remained in the military using drugs, getting into fights, driving under the influence of alcohol, and sexual harassment/assault, etc. h. The applicant felt singled out and like his leadership showed favoritism to other Soldiers. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety/depressed mood and schizoid personality disorder. i. Ultimately, the applicant was separated from the U.S. Army on 11 September 2018. During his career in the U.S. Army, he received the Army Service Ribbon and the National Defense Service Medal. j. After separation from the U.S. Army, the applicant enrolled in a community college to pursue a degree in accounting. He also currently works two jobs as a bookkeeper and as a data entry clerk. He has a clean background, and he has never been arrested. He has a stable and productive life and is receiving treatment for his mental health issues. He served honorably on active duty. The general under honorable conditions service characterization no longer serves a purpose. 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 16 June 2017 for a period of 8 years in the rank/grade of private first class/E-3 under the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program with an obligation to enlist in the Regular Army on 2 August 2017 for not less than 4 years and 21 weeks. He was discharged from the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program and enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 2017 for a period of 4 years and 21 weeks beginning in the rank of E-3. 4. In connection with his enlistment, he signed a DA Form 3286 (Statement for Enlistment – U.S. Army Enlistment Program) on 2 August 2017 acknowledging that he would receive training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist) and his entitlement to cash bonus incentives programs totaling $11,000. This form contained the following language: ASSOCIATED OPTIONS: In connection with my enlistment into the Regular Army, I hereby acknowledge and understand: a. I understand that the bonus amount is a combination of the bonuses listed in paragraph 2 of this annex. Total amount of all combined bonuses is $11000 as authorized by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) incentives message effective 21 Aug[ust] 2015. b. I understand that this bonus amount cannot exceed $10,000 for a two year term of service, $20,000 for a three year term of service, $25,000 for a four year term of service, $30,000 for a five year term of service, and $40,000 for a six year term of service. Initial payment of my bonus will not exceed $10,000 upon completion of contracted MOS training and arrival at my first duty station. The remaining bonus amount will be paid in equal anniversary payments across the remainder of my enlistment contract. I understand that if I fail to complete my initial term of service in the incentivized MOS in which I was contracted due to my own misconduct, performance or reasons other than the needs of the Department of the Army, resulting in failure to attain the bonus MOS, my bonus eligibility will be terminated and any unearned amount received will be subject to recoupment including Airborne, ACASP [Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program] and Seasonal bonuses, IAW [in accordance with] AR [Army Regulation] 601-280 [Army Retention Program]. I further understand that my eligibility to receive Non MOS related incentives such as HIGRAD [college credit] bonus, 8 year MSO [military service obligation] (option 800) bonus or (SENIOR DELAYED SHIP BONUS (Incentive 502)), remains intact providing I remain otherwise eligible and complete my first term of Army contracted service. 5. Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC, Orders 333-489, 29 November 2017, awarded him MOS 42A upon successful completion of the 42A Course. 6. Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC, Orders 340-483, 6 December 2017, assigned him to the 17th Field Artillery Brigade, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, with a reporting date no later than 25 January 2018. 7. The DA Form 2627, 12 March 2018, shows the applicant, while serving in the grade of E-3, was considered for imposition of NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being derelict in the performance of his duties on or about 14 February 2018, in that he negligently failed to keep his M240B machine gun spare barrel secured in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. a. He was afforded the right to consult with counsel. In a closed hearing and having considered all matters presented, the imposing commander found him guilty of the specification. The punishment included forfeiture of $450.00; extra duty for 14 days; and restriction to the limits of company area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship for 14 days. b. He elected not to appeal. Filing of the DA Form 2627 was not applicable per regulatory guidance as he was an E-4 or below at the start of the proceedings. 8. The DA Form 2627, shows the applicant was considered for imposition of NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, on 11 June 2018 for the following offenses: a. failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority on or about 24 April 2018 at or near Orchard Combat Training Center, ID, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, to wit: 2230 accountability formation for guard duty located in the cantonment area of Orchard Combat Training Center; b. failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority on or about 25 April 2018 at or near Orchard Combat Training Center, ID, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, to wit: 2230 accountability formation for guard duty located in the cantonment area of Orchard Combat Training Center; and c. discharging an M240 machine gun through negligence while performing security of the of guard duty on or about 11 April 2018 at or near Orchard Combat Training Center, ID, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces. d. The applicant was afforded the right to consult with counsel. In a closed hearing and having considered all matters presented, the imposing commander found him guilty of all specifications. The punishment included reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $819 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 12 December 2018; extra duty for 45 days; and restriction to the limits of company area, dining/medical facility, place of worship, and place of duty for 45 days e. He elected not to appeal. Filing of the DA Form 2627 was not applicable per regulatory guidance as he was an E-4 or below at the start of the proceedings. 9. The DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), 13 June 2018, shows the imposing authority vacated the suspension of the forfeiture of $819.00 pay per month for 2 months that was imposed on 12 June 2018 based on the applicant failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty without authority on or about 12 June 2018 at or near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, in violation of Article 86, UMCJ, to wit: 1800 extra duty located at Building 13722. 10. The DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) shows the applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 28 June 2018 by a licensed mental health professional. He was screened for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, traumatic brain injury, substance misuse, and sexual trauma. The evaluation determined he did not currently have a behavioral condition that caused him to fail medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). His medical records did not contain substantive evidence that he currently meets criteria for a condition requiring referral to a medical board but has not received a diagnosis. In making this determination, the licensed mental health professional consulted with the applicant's primary therapist. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his chain of command. 11. On 13 August 2018, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. His commander cited the following reasons for this action as: dereliction in the performance of his duties on or about 14 February 2018 by failing to secure a spare M240 machine gun barrel, failing to report to his appointed place of duty on or about 24 April 2018, failing to report to his appointed place of duty on or about 25 April 2018, discharging an M240 machine gun through negligence on or about 11 April 2018, failing to report to his appointed place of duty on or about 6 February 2018, twice failing to report to his appointed place of duty on or about 12 June 2018, and failing to adhere to the grooming standard on or about 16 May 2018 by failing to maintain a cleanly shaven face. The commander indicated he was recommending his receipt of a general discharge. On the same date, he acknowledged receipt of the separation notification memorandum. 12. On 15 August 2018, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. a. He acknowledged that: * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a less than honorable discharge * if his discharge was less than honorable, he could apply to the ADRB or Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for upgrading * an act of consideration by the ADRB or ABCMR did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded * he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years after discharge b. He elected to submit statements in his own behalf. In his memorandum for record, he noted that in February 2018 during a field exercise, a military doctor provided him Flexeril (a muscle relaxer used for muscle spasms from musculoskeletal conditions of sudden onset) for his lower back pain which caused him a lot of trouble psychologically. After he came back from the field, the medication provided by the doctor kept him in a sleepy, dizzy, and very drowsy state. He was unable to fully function and concentrate. The side effects of the medication are what caused him to forget the spare machine gun barrel and leave it unsecured. 13. On 16 August 2018, his immediate and intermediate commanders recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct and issuance of a general discharge. 14. In an undated memorandum, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority directed issuance of a general under honorable conditions service characterization. 15. The applicant was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 on 11 September 2018 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 4-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct. He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 10 days of net active service during this period. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). His DD Form 214 shows the following entries in: * item 18 (Remarks) – "Enlistment Bonus Paid: $11,000, 20180115 [15 January 2018]" * item 26 (Separation Code) – "JKA" * item 27 (Reentry Code) – "3" * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "Pattern of Misconduct" 16. The applicant's records do not contain any evidence showing he was harassed or discriminated against by members of his chain of command or that he sought assistance or reported the contended harassment. His AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command to support a discrimination contention. 17. The applicant petitioned the ADRB for an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions service characterization, a narrative reason change, and a RE code change. The ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his request for changes to his discharge on 23 March 2020. 18. The applicant again petitioned the ADRB for reconsideration of his previous case through a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted on 6 December 2021. The ADRB once again determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request for changes to his discharge. 19. The ADRB conducted another review of the applicant's contentions and discharge on 27 January 2022. The ADRB determined his discharge was inequitable based on his post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (his unspecified cognitive dysfunction and adjustment disorder diagnoses), and relatively minor offenses. The ADRB voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of his service characterization to honorable, change to the separation authority to Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, and change to the narrative reason for separation to "Misconduct (Minor Infractions)" with a corresponding SPD code of "JKN." His RE code was not changed as the current code is consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. He was issued a new DD Form 214. 20. He provided five third-party character statements that recognized his post-service conduct and noted he was a reliable, conscientious, and trustworthy person. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, 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 applicants petition available military records the Board determined that the applicant did not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that procedural error occurred that was prejudicial to the applicant and by a preponderance of evidence that the contents of the Article 15 are substantially incorrect and support removal. The Board determined based on the evidence in the record, the applicant’s narrative reason, separation code and reentry code from the discharge upgrade by the Army Review Board Agency supports the separation identified on the DD form 214. Furthermore, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence that supports reimbursement of the applicant’s enlistment bonus of $11,000 and restoration of his rank/grade to private first class. 2. The purpose of maintaining the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the AMHRR serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluations, and any corrections to other parts of the AMHRR. Once placed in the AMHRR, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the AMHRR unless directed by an appropriate authority. There does not appear to be any evidence the contested Article 15 was unjust or untrue or inappropriately filed in the applicant's AMHRR. Therefore, relief was denied. 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. 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 will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. 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 evidence. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, effective 19 December 2016, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. a. Paragraph 1-16d(2) stated the rehabilitative transfer requirements in chapters 11, 13, and 14 may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. b. Paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Plenary Authority) stated a separation under this paragraph is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. c. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. Paragraph 14-12a (Minor Disciplinary Infractions) addressed a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 3. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), 31 August 2016, prescribed eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service, into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. It provided policies and procedures to process applicants for enlistment in the Regular Army DEP. a. Paragraph 3-20 stated RE codes are used for administrative purposes only. Applicants are advised that these codes are not to be considered derogatory in nature; they simply are codes used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure. b. Table 3-1 provided a list of RE codes. * RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their terms of active service who are considered qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable – they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on DD Forms 214. a. SPD code "JKN" is the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers who are administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, based on misconduct. b. SPD code "JFF" is the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers who are administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3, under Secretarial authority. 5. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE codes for Active Army and Reserve Component Soldiers. The SPD/RE Cross Reference Table in effect at the time of the applicant's separation established the RE code of "3" as the proper RE code to assign to enlisted Soldiers separated with SPD code "JKN." The RE code will be determined for separations by the Secretary of the Army or his/her representative. 6. Army Regulation 601-280, effective 1 May 2016, prescribed the criteria for the Army Retention Program and set forth policies and command responsibilities for immediate reenlistment or extension of enlistment of Soldiers currently serving in the Active Army and enlistment and/or transfer and assignment of Soldiers processing from the Regular Army to the Reserve Components of the Army. 7. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the Manual for Courts- Martial. It provides that a commander should use non-punitive administrative measures to the fullest extent to further the efficiency of the command before resorting to NJP under the UCMJ. Use of NJP is proper in all cases involving minor offenses in which non-punitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate. NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial. a. Paragraph 3-6a addresses filing of NJP and provides that a commander's decision whether to file a record of NJP in the performance folder of a Soldier's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is as important as the decision relating to imposition of the NJP itself. In making a filing determination, the imposing commander must carefully weigh the interests of the Soldier's career against those of the Army to produce and advance only the most qualified personnel for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility. In this regard, the imposing commander should consider the Soldier's age, grade, total service (with particular attention to the Soldier's recent performance and past misconduct), and whether the Soldier has more than one record of NJP directed for filing in the restricted folder. However, the interests of the Army are compelling when the record of NJP reflects unmitigated moral turpitude or lack of integrity, patterns of misconduct, or evidence of serious character deficiency or substantial breach of military discipline. In such cases, the record should be filed in the performance folder. b. Paragraph 3-37b states the decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance folder or restricted folder of the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed. The filing decision of the imposing commander is subject to review by superior authority. However, the superior authority cannot direct filing a DA Form 2627 in the performance folder that the imposing commander directed to be filed in the restricted folder. For Soldiers who are at the rank of specialist or corporal and below (prior to punishment) the original will be filed locally in unit NJP or unit personnel files unless the Soldier has been found guilty of a sex- related offense, in which case, the document must be filed in the performance folder in the Soldier's OMPF. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to, the OMPF, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army.? a. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agencies. b. Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the AMHRR and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) states case files for approved separations and any additional documents that support the separation action (adverse action, medical, administrative, etc.) are filed in the service folder of the OMPF. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220008310 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1