IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 September 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000965 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her name as in lieu of * physical disability separation or retirement APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Display Transcript * Court document, 22 December 2021 * Driver license * Results: Chemistry and Hematology * Disabilities screenshot * Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) letter, 2 June 2022 * Letter certifying gender change and name change, 9 December 2021 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states she is a transgender woman. She changed her legal name from to in 2022, as evidenced in the attached name change order, to align her name with her gender identity. The appearance of her old name on her DD Form 214 is an injustice because it discloses her transgender status every time, she shows her DD Form 214. This is an injustice due to the social stigma and discrimination that transgender people face. This injustice can be remedied effectively by issuing a corrected DD Form 214 listing her current legal name. She would also like to update the separation type of separation from discharge to medical, as the narrative reason for separation states that it was for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, which is what people see every time, she shows her DD Form 214. She would like it to be updated to a medical discharge as she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from an incident that occurred while she was serving that had negative effects unfortunately while she was serving. She does not agree this type of separation reflects the person she is today. After being separated from the military she enrolled in college, she received an associate degree in Fashion Merchandising and graduated with a 3.52 grade point average. She is currently enrolled to get another degree in Marketing, she is also scheduled to take the State Real Estate Test to become a Real Estate Agent. 3. The applicant’s record will be administratively corrected to reflect the applicant’s new name as court ordered. This issue will no longer be discussed in this record of proceedings. The Board will consider the applicant’s request for a medical disability discharge. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 2017. She held military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer). 5. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not available for the Board to review. However, her record contains a DD Form 214, which shows she was honorably discharged on 8 October 2019, in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), chapter 9. Her DD Form 214 also shows: * Item 25 (Separation Authority): AR 635-200, chapter 9 * Item 26 (Separation Code): JPD * Item 27 (Reentry Code): 4 * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Alcohol rehabilitation failure 6. The applicant provides: a. Display Transcript showing her unofficial transcript and that she was scheduled to complete her associate degree in Marketing, Business on 25 May 2022. b. Court document, 22 December 2021, showing her legal name change. c. Driver license showing the requested name. d. Results: Chemistry and Hematology showing knee pain, low back pain, and PTSD. e. Disabilities screenshot showing she has a total combined disability rating of 90%. f. DVA letter, 2 June 2022, showing her combined disability rating of 90%. g. Letter certifying gender change and name change, 9 December 2021, showing her provider stating the applicant had appropriate clinical treatment for transition to female. 7. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 8. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 9. Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The DVA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the DVA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 10. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents, the Record of Proceedings (ROP), and the applicant's available records in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) and the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant requests a change in the narrative reason for discharge from ‘Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure’ to ‘Medical Discharge’. They are also a transgender woman and requested a new CD 214 to reflect the new gender. They indicated that PTSD was related to their request. b. The ABCMR ROP was reviewed. Of note, the applicant was in service from 20170612 to 20191008. They were separated prior to the end of the current term of service due to ‘Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure’. The applicant’s service was characterized as ‘Honorable’. c. The 23-year-old was self-referred to behavioral health ostensibly for delayed bereavement from the death of their grandmother when they were age 16 (10Aug2018 Schofield Barracks). They endorsed that this led to the development of anger, irritability, and insomnia after her death. They also expressed frustration at work because of crude comments being made about females. They were psychiatrically admitted 16-19 September 2018 after a suicide attempt (alcohol and overdose of their psychotropic and sleeping medication). It should be noted that in the medical record the incident is frequently referred to as a suicide gesture because the applicant not infrequently altered the description of the incident (“only drank and flushed the pills” instead of ingesting them, denied being suicidal etc.) and there was no toxicity noted in lab values or in their presentation. Command endorsed that there were no workplace issues at that point. The applicant did not deploy. They denied trauma, PTSD and TBI exposure. They also denied childhood abuse/trauma. The hospital discharge diagnosis was Insomnia; rule out Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), moderate to severe; and Adjustment Disorder. d. After the suicide attempt, the applicant was placed on no alcohol, no weapons behavioral health (BH) profile. They participated in an intensive outpatient BH program from 24Sep2018 to 19Oct2018 and psychotropic medication with some modest success. They then suffered the following setbacks: A failed 09Oct2018 APFT, an episode of gross hematuria in October 2018 (cystoscopy showed some friable tissue along the prostatic urethra and bladder neck but otherwise, no pathology); and hematemesis (vomiting blood) ultimately diagnosed as a Hiatal Hernia and Gastric Reflux in December 2018 with the latter being considered the result of alcohol abuse. The applicant believed that their medical issues were causing some of the depression, anxiety, and sleep issues. Despite known adverse medical (gastrointestinal) consequences, testing showed continued excess alcohol use, although the applicant denied alcohol use to providers. The applicant was referred for treatment (Substance Use Disorder Clinical Care) by medical provider(s). However, the Ethyl Glucuronide (ETG) was 1260ng/mL on 12Dec2018. The cutoff was 250. Because of medical consequences of continued alcohol use for the applicant, medical providers pushed for command to direct participation in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) (08Jan2019 SB EBH Schofield Barracks). The 17Jan2019 ETG test result 1680 ng/mL was increased showing noncompliance. The applicant also blacked-out on this date during a scheduled visit. On 28Jan2019, ASAP failure was documented, and it was communicated to Command that a chapter separation could begin. e. During the 29Jan2019 individual therapy session, the applicant was advised of the possibility of a chapter 9 separation. The applicant then reported being intoxicated in July 2018 and recalled being sexually assaulted by a female and her male companion who was the Uber driver that evening. After this disclosure, they reported that their last drink was 25Jan2019. Subsequently, they appeared to do well—mood seemed to stabilize, sleep was better (6-7 hours per night), they were enjoying working out at the Ju Jitsu gym and reported no suicide ideation. They underwent surgical repair of the hiatal hernia 11Mar2019, after which a temporary profile was placed for light duty for 6 weeks followed by no strenuous exercise (sit-ups/heavy lifting, etc.) for 6 months. f. On 02Apr2019, the applicant walked in for an unscheduled BH appointment because of adverse consequence of drinking: They were very anxious because they had been accused of trashing someone else’s room and they had no recollection of the incident. On 11Apr2019, the applicant’s participation in SUDCC was discussed: Although they were enrolled in alcohol rehab, they reportedly rarely showed up for group and had not completed the program although enrolled since January. The applicant denied having a problem with alcohol and was convinced the program would not help; therefore, they were discharged from the program. In contrast to previous statements, they now requested counseling to address the sexual assault. The applicant began treatment with a new therapist on 29Apr2019. g. On 23Apr2019, the ETG was 818ng/ml, again well above the cutoff. Command restarted proceedings for chapter separation for alcohol rehab failure. This increased the applicant’s stress. In May 2019, the applicant was being tracked under a high-risk list, for Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Suicide Ideation, and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant was requesting a MEB either behavioral health or physical medical condition oriented. A MEB discharge would take precedence over a chapter separation. However, the applicant’s physical issues (hematuria, dysphagia, heartburn etc.) were resolved or under treatment and/or adequately controlled; therefore, they were not eligible for a MEB based on a physical condition. Multidisciplinary BH providers met weekly to discuss the applicant’s progress and whether a MEB was appropriate or whether the chapter 9 separation should proceed. In addition, the applicant began endorsing that they had been self-medicating with alcohol to feel calm. The applicant’s treating therapist, a licensed clinical psychologist stated that since the applicant only recently began treatment with them (began CBT on 29Apr2019), they were of the opinion that the applicant’s BH condition had not yet met MRDP (medical retention determination point—when it had been at least a year since a condition was diagnosed and despite appropriate therapy it could be predicted with some certainty that the condition would unlikely permit return to full duty). The treating clinical psychologist did assess that the applicant did not currently meet the retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 and AR 635-200 for fitness and suitability for continued service: The applicant had a temporary BH profile which restricted weapons access and deployment. A different BH provider opined that the applicant’s BH condition had not improved [yet] due to their multiple medical setbacks. h. The 07Jun2019 Chapter Physical Exam (Report of Medical Exam) showed the following summary of defects: Hematuria (cystoscopy x 2 showed irritation only); Alcohol Abuse; Hiatal Hernia, repaired (March 2019); Meralgia Paraesthetica-left thigh; History of Suicide Gesture, with sleep disorder, and depressive symptoms. The applicant was deemed qualified for continued service, and they were cleared for separation. PULHES at the time was listed as 111111. It should be noted that on the same day, the treating licensed clinical psychologist indicated that the applicant was still on the temporary BH profile. The applicant underwent chapter separation while the temporary profile was still in effect. At their 27Aug2019 final visit together, the treating BH provider indicated the applicant was having some response to treatment. i. During the out-processing BH visit, the listed diagnosis was Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. The following diagnoses were listed as no longer active: Suicide Ideation, MDD, and Bereavement. The applicant stated that they were “excited” and looking forward to moving to San Francisco for school. They were cleared to out- process from a BH viewpoint. At the time of discharge, the applicant was responding to therapy. They did not have a permanent S3 BH profile. There was a previous suicide attempt although the applicant denied this at the time. The applicant’s medical issues, cluster B traits, and alcohol abuse complicated treatment; however, the applicant was still managing to receive some benefit from treatment. Command’s issues with the applicant’s performance appeared to be related to negative consequences of the alcohol abuse. The applicant perceived their work environment as hostile and incongruent with their values—a legitimate contention if crude comments were being made about females. j. Six months after discharge from service, during a 10Apr2020 Mental Health Comprehensive Assessment, the applicant disclosed that they hid the sexual assault initially. They believe that something was slipped in their drink. They disclosed for the first time that the assault took place on their birthday, on base, by another soldier. They attempted overdose with alcohol after this event. They reported having a drinking problem while in service and following the assault. They also stated that much of the early treatment wasn’t helpful because they had not been truthful, and the focus was primarily on alcohol abuse. Once the sexual assault was disclosed, trauma therapy was started but they were already getting out. They did find medication helpful for symptoms, noted more after being off Zoloft for 3 months. The applicant denied suicide ideation and depression. They were in school at City College of San Francisco, hoping to get a Master's in Business and Fashion Merchandizing utilizing the Gi Bill. The VA rated the applicant’s PTSD at 70% effective the day after separation from service. k. Based on information available for review, evidence was insufficient to support changing the reason for discharge from ‘Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure’ to ‘Medical Discharge’ because the applicant did not have a condition with a permanent level 3 physical profile and for which they were eligible to be referred into the IDES (Integrated Disability Evaluation System). Because of the MST condition and resultant PTSD condition, as well as the use of alcohol for self-medication; recommend change in narrative reason from ‘Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure’ to ‘Condition Not a Disability’ or alternatively to ‘Secretarial Authority’. The Board will address the applicant’s other administrative requests. ? BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records, and medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence to support changing the reason for discharge from ‘Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure’ to ‘Medical Discharge’ because the applicant did not have a condition with a permanent level 3 physical profile and for which they were eligible to be referred into the IDES (Integrated Disability Evaluation System). 2. However, the Board determined based on the medical opine, because of the MST condition and resultant PTSD condition, as well as the use of alcohol for self- medication; the opine recommended a change in narrative reason from ‘Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure’ to ‘Condition Not a Disability’ or alternatively to ‘Secretarial Authority. Based on the preponderance of evidence the Board determined that the separation code and RE Code was not in error or unjust. Therefore, the Board granted partial relief to correction the narrative reason to secretarial authority. 3. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. 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 amending the narrative reason to read Secretarial Authority. 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 physical disability separation or retirement. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): A review of the applicant’s service record and court documents contains sufficient evidence to support her requested name change on her DD Form 214. As a result, amend her DD Form 214 ending on 8 October 2019 to reflect her name as D____ St____ as shown in the 22 December 2021 court order. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program) in effect at the time, prescribed treatment policies and goals to restore individuals to full and effective functioning on duty. Rehabilitation is considered a failure if the Soldier is unable to remain free from the abuse of alcohol or other drugs. This regulation also directs that when a commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, declares a service member a rehabilitation failure, the individual will be processed for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-4 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) or Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). 3. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), provides policy guidance on enlisted administrative separations. Chapter 9 pertains to alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failures. It states a member who is enrolled in the ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. The service of members discharged under his section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB); when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 5. AR 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service- incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. c. The percentage assigned to a medical defect or condition is the disability rating. A rating is not assigned until the PEB determines the Soldier is physically unfit for duty. Ratings are assigned from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The fact that a Soldier has a condition listed in the VASRD does not equate to a finding of physical unfitness. An unfitting, or ratable condition, is one which renders the Soldier unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of their employment on active duty. There is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. 6. AR 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations - Separation Program Designators (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, provided that: a. The SPD code of "JPD" is the correct SPD code for involuntary separations of enlisted personnel in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200. b. The SPD code of "JFR" is the correct SPD code for involuntary separations of enlisted personnel for disability, other. 7. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 8. Title 38 U.S. Code 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 9. Title 38 U.S. Code 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 10. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (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 under other than honorable conditions, 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. 11. 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; sexual harassment. Boards were directed to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led to the discharge. 12. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (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. 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 based on 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. 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. 13. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230000965 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1