IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 January 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006688 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests: * an upgrade of his Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge * correction of his last name from APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 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, in effect, he desires to have his record corrected to show his current last name. He indicates on his DD Form 149, that his name while serving was but his current last name is He further requests an upgrade of the characterization of his service based upon the fact that he was suffering from childhood depression and post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his period of service, and it complicated his situation. An upgraded discharge will enable him to better serve his community and potentially reenlist. 3. On 5 March 2010, the applicant underwent a pre-enlistment medical examination. a. His DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) shows he reported he was not taking any medications at the time and had no history of any medical conditions or injuries other than Chicken Pox. b. His DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) shows the examining physician determined the applicant had no pertinent medical defects or diagnoses and found him to be qualified for service. 4. On 13 July 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks. Upon completion of initial entry training, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Benning, GA. He was promoted to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 July 2011. 5. DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant's unit changed his duty status as follows: * from Present for Duty (PDY) to Absent Without Leave (AWOL) effective 18 April 2012 * from AWOL to Dropped from Rolls (DFR) effective 18 May 2012 6. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His unit reported him as a deserter/absentee, effective 18 May 2012. On 20 June 2012, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Benning, Georgia and was returned to military control. 7. On 21 June 2012, the applicant was counseled regarding his period of AWOL and was advised that he was being recommended for involuntary separation from the Army due to his misconduct. An administrative flag was imposed upon him to suspend any favorable personnel actions on the same date. 8. On 25 June 2012, the applicant underwent a pre-separation medical examination. a. His DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) shows he reported experiencing: * frequent ringing in his ears * loss of vision in either eye, which resulted in him wearing glasses * recurrent back pain or any back problem stemming from a hit and run accident while serving in the military * frequent or severe headache * seizures, convulsions, epilepsy, or fits * pain or pressure in the chest when he moved a lot * occasional pounding or abnormal heartbeat * a diagnosis of anxiety * frequent trouble sleeping and having to take medication to sleep * attempting suicide by taking 10,000 milligrams of Depakote * use of illegal drugs or abuse of prescription drugs * treatment in an emergency room and hospitalization following his suicide attempt b. The examining physician noted the applicant was prescribed Depakote, Zoloft, Seroquel, and Clozapine at the time. He had no pertinent medical defects or diagnoses that would disqualify him from service. 9. The applicant was formally counseled on the following dates for the reasons shown: * 17 July 2012 – failing to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty * 19 July 2012 – check in requirements at the Charge of Quarters desk on a specific schedule * 30 July 2012 – command referral to undergo a mental evaluation to determine if he was suitable for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14 10. On 16 August 2012 the applicant completed: a. a Primary Care PTSD screen wherein he reported he had not experienced any of the symptoms associated with PTSD within the past month. b. a Behavioral Health questionnaire, wherein he indicated: * he was feeling 100 percent psychologically/emotionally at the time * prior to joining the military, he had never experienced a significant mental health problem for which he received treatment * since joining the military, he had attempted suicide and been treated for depression * he was not receiving any type of treatment or experiencing any major/significant medical or physical problems at the time * he experienced the following while growing up: physical abuse; verbal or emotional abuse; sexual abuse; teasing or bullying from peers * he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 11. On 29 August 2012, the applicant underwent a command directed mental status evaluation to determine if he was suitable for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14. The examining Clinical Psychologist determined the applicant: * was fit for full duty, including deployment * displayed no pertinent findings * could understand and participate in administrative proceedings * had an Axis I Adjustment Disorder * required no proposed treatments or recommend precautions * had negative results from PTSD and mild Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) screenings * was cleared for separation processing 12. On 13 September 2012, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of commission of a serious offense. The specific reason for this action was the applicant's AWOL from 18 April until 21 June 2012. He advised the applicant he was recommending that he receive a General discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification the same day. 13. On 25 September 2012, the applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated actions to separate him and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him to waive his rights. He requested representation by counsel and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 14. The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of commission of a serious offense. The applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the recommendation for separation with the issuance of a General discharge. 15. On 28 September 2012, the separation authority approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant's service be characterized as General, Under Honorable Conditions. 16. Orders and the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) show he was discharged on 23 October 2012. His DD Form 214 shows, in: (1) block 12 (Record of Service) – He completed 2 years, 1 month, and 7 days of net active service this period. (2) block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign awarded or authorized) - He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Army Service Ribbon. (3) block 18 (Remarks) – He did not complete his first full term of service. (4) block 24 (Character of Service) - His characterization of service was Under honorable Conditions (General). (5) block 25 (Separation Authority) - The authority for his separation was Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c. (6) block 26 (Separation Code) - His Separation Program Designator Code was "JKQ." (7) block 27 (Reentry Code) - His Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code was "3." (8) block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - The narrative reason for his separation was "Misconduct, (Serious Offense)." (9) block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) – He had time lost due to AWOL from 18 April 2012 until 21 June 2012. 17. The applicant's last name consistently appears as throughout his entire record. 18. The applicant's record is void of evidence and he has not provided any evidence which shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other medical or behavioral health condition during this period of service. 19. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. An ADRB letter, dated 26 June 2013, informed the applicant that after careful review or his application, military records, and all other available evidence, it was determined that he was properly and equitably discharged. Accordingly, his request for a change in the characterization of his service was denied. 20. With regard to the applicant's requests to correct his last name, a review of the applicant's application and service record shows the following: a. The applicant indicated on his DD Form 149 that his current last name is b. The applicant's last name consistently appears as throughout his entire record. 21. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief BCM/NRs 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. 22. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 23. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. He contends his misconduct was associated with depression and PTSD. 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 13 July 2010; 2) DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant was reported AWOL effective 18 April 2012 and dropped from rolls effective 18 May 2012; 3) Court-martial charges were preferred against him on 18 May 2012 for going AWOL; 4) He was separated on 23 October 2012 under provisions of AR635 – 200, Chapter 14-12c, serious misconduct. c. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA), VA electronic medical record (JLV), and ROP were reviewed. A review of AHLTA showed the applicant’s first BH- related engagement, during service, occurred on 10 June 2011 at BH Clinic,. The applicant reported depressed mood in the context of learning his grandfather was ill and feeling overwhelmed with new duties as the training room NCO. He also noted having recently gotten married in May. Diagnosis was deferred and the applicant was scheduled for follow-up. During the follow-up visit the applicant reported a history of ADHD and anxiety and disclosed he had taken medication to treat both through the 12th grade. According to the applicant he discontinued medication after being informed by his recruiter that he would not be able to join the service if taking the medications. The applicant stated a desire to restart the medications to help with mood and sleep. Diagnosis was deferred and the applicant was scheduled for follow-up. The applicant did not return for 3 consecutive follow-up and the provider entered a termination note effective 15 July 2011. d. The applicant’s next BH encounter occurred on 19 October 2011, after he was seen the night before with seizure-like activity that was determined to be stressed induced. The applicant reported significant stress and anxiety in the context of marital problems. He was diagnosed with depression and scheduled for follow up at the outpatient BH clinic and referred for a psychiatric intake with a civilian provider. e. On 1 November 2011 the applicant reported for a Command Directed Evaluation. The applicant complained of daily headaches, fatigue, problems with appetite, concentration difficulty, decreased libido, persistent worry, depressed mood, and sleep difficulties. He also reported olfactory hallucinations characterized by smelling his dad’s garage, and sawdust for no reason. Additionally, he reported instances of hypnogogic hallucination, characterized by seeing visions of his dad. SM also reported significant concerns regarding his wife’s safety who was reportedly pregnant, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and had a history of suicide attempt. He reported the worry was impacting his ability to function at work and that command had threated to discharge him if issues continue to come up. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. f. On 1 December 2011 the applicant was seen by BH in the ED after he reportedly awaken experiencing a pseudo seizure. He was reportedly disoriented and seeing things at an angle. The seizure was suspected to be related to the applicant’s medication, which included Klonopin, Divaloprex, Zoloft, and Concerta. During the encounter the applicant also reported a history of child molestation and anger problems. After the treating BH provider contacted the applicant’s civilian provider, a decision was made for the applicant to discontinue use of Concerta. The applicant’s diagnosis of record for the ED visit was PTSD. It should be noted that prior to this visit there doesn’t appear to be a PTSD diagnosis in the applicant’s military record and it doesn’t appear there was sufficient information provided in the ED encounter to support a PTSD diagnosis. Therefore, it is inferred by this writer that the diagnostic information may have been provided to the treating ED BH provider by the applicant’s civilian provider during consultation. The applicant was released and instructed to continue outpatient care. g. On 15 December 2011 the applicant reported for medication reconciliation. Current medications included Zoloft, Klonopin, Depakote, and Seroquel. The applicant continued to report stress in the context of work and marital problems. He also reportedly described a history of working as a volunteer ambulance team member, exposed to multiple potentially traumatizing experiences. The provider noted the applicant didn’t appear phased by any of the potentially traumatizing interactions, and that he expressed a desire to change his MOS to something more exciting. h. On 8 February 2012 the applicant was seen in the walk-in clinic for a same day appointment after making vague statement suggesting suicidal ideation. During the encounter the applicant denied SI, intent, and plan. The applicant’s civilian provider was contacted and agreed to see the applicant the following day. The treating provider noted that the applicant’s civilian provider had diagnosed him with bipolar disorder, and that the diagnosis would require an MEB be started if the diagnosis was accurate. i. On 29 February 2012 a FAP case was opened subsequent the applicant being struck by his spouse while visiting the NICU. The couple had reportedly been estranged since December 2011 after the applicant’s wife first struck him. The applicant attended counseling through FAP through 5 April 2012; the applicant was reported AWOL on 18 April 2012. j. On 19 June 2012 the applicant’s treating military BH provider was notified by command that the applicant was AWOL and being treating at the Bradley Center secondary to a suicide attempt. The applicant was released from the Bradley center and returned to his unit on 20 June 2012. During a 21 June 2012 encounter the applicant disclosed he attempted to overdose on Depakote secondary to continued arguments with his wife and a miscarriage by his fiancée. The applicant continued outpatient treatment until discharged. k. A review of JLV showed the applicant with minimal BH-related treatment at the VA and his does not have a service-connected disability. Records suggest the applicant’s first BH related engagement with the VA occurred on 17 February 2014 with the Boise, ID, VA whereby the applicant contacted the helpline reporting suicidal ideation in the context of difficulties adjusting to civilian life. He reported a history of PTSD, sleep concerns, and SI. Toward the end of the call, he noted improvement and denied intent and plan. He declined an offer of ambulance transport. A consult was placed and accepted. The applicant failed to make the scheduled appointment. The applicant again requested a consult on 15 November 2015 for treatment of anxiety. The consult was placed and accepted but the applicant did not report to the scheduled appointment. On 25 January 2016 the applicant reported for a psychiatric intake appointment. The examiner noted the applicant reported symptoms consistent with unspecified trauma related disorder, related to childhood trauma, that didn’t meet criteria for PTSD, due to lacking a clear criterion A trauma. The examiner went on to note a reported history of childhood physical and sexual abuse, currently manifesting as anger and irritability. The applicant was referred to outpatient treatment and appears to have attended a single appointment on 12 February 2016 during which he reported anger issues, and a history of childhood abuse and neglect. The provider noted a disconnect between the applicant’s PCL score of 23, stating the applicant may be under reporting or not consciously aware of the impact of the trauma. JLV appears void of any further BH-related encounters. l. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct. 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 contends his misconduct was related to PTSD. Additionally, records show the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD related to childhood trauma, while on active duty., (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. A review of the records showed the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD related to childhood trauma, bipolar disorder, adjustment disorder, and Depression. His reported misconduct appears to consist of a single instance of going AWOL. The applicant PTSD appears to have been exacerbated, while on active duty, by verbal and physical abuse perpetrated against him by his wife and he was experiencing other work related and interpersonal stressors of sufficient magnitude to induce pseudo seizures. The applicant’s decision to go AWOL appears to have been associated with a desire to escape/avoid continued traumatic exposure/reminders and this type of behavior is natural sequela of trauma-related disorders, thus his misconduct characterized by AWOL is mitigated. It should be noted that this advisor finds it concerning that the applicant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, by a civilian provider, while on active duty but not referred for an MEB. Per regulation bipolar I disorder requires a referral to MEB. The diagnosis of bipolar disorder was first noted by the provider who conducted the 8 February 2012 encounter. The provider noted, in part, that “his [the applicant’s] psychiatrist has diagnosed him with bipolar disorder. This would require an MEB to be started on him if it is accurate. It is therefore important to obtain this information and to arrange appropriate evaluation. This will be arranged at his return visit”. The records are void of the provider obtaining the information. Given the evidence of the applicant having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder while on active duty, it is with an abundance of caution that this advisor recommends the board consider referring the case to DES for further review. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. With regard to the applicant’s character of service, the Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. The applicant was discharged due to misconduct. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. Based on published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined his discharge should be upgraded to fully Honorable with no change to his reason for separation or associated codes. 2. With regard to the applicant's requests to correct his last name, a review of the applicant's application and service record shows the following: The applicant indicated on his DD Form 149 that his current last name is The applicant's last name consistently appears as throughout his entire record. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing he underwent a legal name change during his period of service. The Board has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records; for historical purposes, the data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances, as they existed at the time of the records' creation. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant’s the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period ending 23 October 2012 showing: * Characterization of Service: Honorable * Separation Authority: No change * Separation Code: No change * Reentry (RE) Code: No change * Narrative Reason for Separation: No change 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to changing his name. 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 three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Title 10, USC, section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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. Paragraph 3-7b states 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). 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 merited by the Soldier’s overall record. 4. Army Regulation 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. It states that the separation code "JKA" is an appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Misconduct. Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table established that RE code "3" was the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under this authority and for this reason. 5. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, released from active-duty service, or control of the Active Army. It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. a. Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214. It states that the source documents for entering information on the DD Form 214 will be the Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), Officer Record Brief (ORB), enlistment/ reenlistment documents, personnel finance records, discharge documents, separation orders, or any other document authorized for filing in the Official Military Personnel File. It shows for: (1) item 1, enter name in all capital letters; include "JR," "SR," or "II", if appropriate. Compare the ERB/ORB to contract for possible name change; and (2) item 18, when a DD Form 214 is administratively issued or reissued, enter "DD Form 214 ADMINISTRATIVELY ISSUED/REISSUED ON (date)." However, do not make this entry if the appellate authority; Executive Order; or Headquarters, Department of the Army, directs otherwise. b. On direction of the ABCMR or ADRB, or in other instances when appropriate, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Army Review Boards Agency, is authorized to issue or reissue a DD Form 214. Once a DD Form 214 has been issued, it will not be reissued except under specified circumstances including when it is determined that the original DD Form 214 cannot be properly corrected by issuance of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214). 6. On 3?September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service BCM/NRs to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 7. 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 to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 8. On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. 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, BCM/NRs 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006688 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1