IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002163 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, * an honorable medical separation * personal appearance before the Board via video/telephone APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), 8 June 1992 * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document), 16 April 1992 * DA Form 2-1 (Enlisted Personnel Record) page 4 * Orders 140-22, 20 July 1992 * MRI Lumbar Spine without contrast, 10 October 2021 * MRI Cervical Spine without contrast, 12 November 2019 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 he was admitted to the Army National Guard (ARNG) and passed his physical prior to being sworn in. During his medical exam, he informed the doctor he had prior surgery on his chest at age 12-13, the doctor said it would not be a problem. While in basic training he had consistent pain in his chest area. The Army doctor examined him and informed him that he should have never been allowed to join, never allowed to enlist. He was sent home due to this medical reason. Years later, around 4 years ago, while getting a scan for his lower back disc he had injured, the doctors discovered he was born with a condition called spinal stenosis. He never knew of this condition until images where taken. He has stenosis of the neck and spine. He never knew of it but feels this was a cause of him being unable to finish basic training. He believes looking back just the fact he mentioned his prior chest surgery the Army doctor was correct. I should not have been allowed to join. He feels the correction should be made now being he has discovered medical information that was not known to anyone. He does not blame the Army for his condition he knew nothing of, but he does believe his prior surgery should have been a sign not to move forward with him. Now that he discovered a chronic medical condition, he realizes there was nothing more he could do, therefore he is hoping his discharge can be upgraded considering the situation. 3. The applicant enlisted in the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) on 16 April 1992. 4. He entered a period of active duty on 5 May 1992. On 26 May 1992, an Entrance Physical Standards Board convened. After careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examination, the board found that the service member was medically unfit for appointment or enlistment in accordance with (IAW) current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition(s) existed prior to service (EPTS). The member has the following medical conditions and/or physical defects: a. HISTORY OF EPTS CONDITION: Surgical correction of pectus carinatum defect at age 13. Well documented in medical record, copy of repair, etc. Since then, has been very sedentary especially regarding upper body conditioning. b. SUBJECTIVE FINDINGS: Complains of pain with pushups, pull ups, and upper body activity, since start of basic combat training two weeks ago. c. OBJECTIVE FINDINGS: Well-healed surgical scar 5cm subxiphoid region; right distal 1/4 of sternum absent to palpation; very poor musculature development; right pectoralis major very atrophic; lungs clear and equal; heart without murmurs or gallops; chest clear with normal I:E ratio. d. LAB AND X-RAY RESULTS: Lower 1/4 sternum surgically absent. e. DIAGNOSIS: Status post-surgical repair of pectus carinatum with postoperative atrophy. f. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that this soldier be separated from the U. S. Army for failure to meet medical procurement standards IAW chapter 2, paragraph 2-39c, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). EPTS: Yes. Service aggravated: No. Soldier does meet medical retention standards IAW Chapter 3, AR 40-501. g. Findings were approved on 26 May 1992. 5. On 29 May 1992, his commander counseled the applicant regarding his options in this action and he elected separation. After consideration of all factors concerning this action his commander recommended separation. His intermediate commander also recommended separation. 6. The separation authority approval is not in the available record. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was released from active-duty training (ADT) with an uncharacterized character of service due to not meeting procurement medical fitness standard no disability, on 9 June 1992. The separation authority shows as AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) paragraph 5-11. The separation code is “JFT” and his reentry code is “3”. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 month and 4 days of net active service this period. 7. NGB Form 22 (National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant was discharged from the NYARNG on 8 June 1992. 8. Orders 140-22, issued by State of New York, on 20 July 1992, shows the applicant was discharged effective 8 June 1992, with an uncharacterized type of discharge. 9. The applicant provides: a. MRI Cervical Spine without contrast, 12 November 2019, which shows history of neck pain. FINDINGS: There is anatomic alignment of the cervical vertebral bodies on the sagittal images Degenerative disc desiccation and disc space narrowing is noted at CS-6. No pathologic bone marrow replacement is observed. No acute compression fracture is observed. The cerebellar tonsils are normal in position. The craniocervical junction is unremarkable. At C2 - C3, there is no disc herniation, spinal stenosis, or foraminal stenosis. At C3 - C4, there is a small central disc herniation without cord compression or canal stenosis. The neural foramina are patent. At C4 - CS, there is no disc herniation, spinal stenosis, or foraminal stenosis. At C5 - C6, there is a broad annular bulge and associated posterior endplate osteophyte which partially effaces the anterior subarachnoid space without cord contact. Uncovertebral joint hypertrophy contributes to moderate to severe right and moderate left foraminal stenosis At C6 - C7, there is a mild annular bulge without canal stenosis or cord contact. The neural foramina are patent. At C7 - T1, there is no disc herniation, spinal stenosis, or foraminal stenosis. The spinal cord is normal in caliber and signal characteristics. No intradural or paraspinal mass lesion is observed. IMPRESSION: Small central disc herniation at C3- 4. Broad annular bulge/posterior endplate osteophyte complex and uncovertebral joint hypertrophy at C5-6 with, to severe right foraminal stenosis and moderate left foraminal stenosis. Mild annular bulge at C6-7. b. MRI Lumbar Spine without contrast, 10 October 2021, which shows FINDINGS: There is straightening of the usual lumbar lordosis. Vertebral body heights and alignment are otherwise maintained. Multilevel degenerative endplate marrow signal changes are observed. There is moderate L2-3 and mild L4-5 disc space narrowing and multilevel Schmorl's nodes. The conus medullaris terminates at the level of L1. No intraspinal or paraspinal mass lesions are evident. L1-L2: No significant spinal canal or neural foraminal compromise. L2-L3: There is a small, superiorly extruded central disc herniation superimposed on mild to moderate diffuse disc/osteophyte formation resulting in mild to moderate spinal canal stenosis. There is moderate neural foraminal stenosis bilaterally. L3-L4: There is mild diffuse disc bulge contributing to mild spinal canal stenosis and mild neural foraminal encroachment bilaterally. L4-L5: There is moderate diffuse disc bulge contributing to mild to moderate spinal canal stenosis and impingement of the traversing bilateral L5 nerve roots. There is mild to moderate neural foraminal stenosis bilaterally. L5-S1: There is minimal annular bulging. No significant spinal canal or neural foraminal compromise. IMPRESSION: (1) Multilevel degenerative changes of the lumbar spine contributing to mild to moderate spinal canal stenosis at L2-3 and L4-5, mild at L3-4. (2) Impingement of the traversing L5 nerve roots bilaterally at L4-5. (3) Moderate neural foraminal stenosis bilaterally at L2-3, mild to moderate bilaterally at L4-5 and mild bilaterally at L3-4. (4) Small multilevel chronic Schmorl's nodes. 10. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR on a case-by-case basis. 11. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty, active duty for training, or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSBD, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty, the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under AR 40-501, chapter 3. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty service prior to the initiation of separation action. b. An uncharacterized separation is an entry-level separation. A separation will be described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in entry-level status, except when characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized by the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case or when the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. A general discharge is not authorized. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: b. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR in essence requesting a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He states: “In summary, I was admitted to the Army National Guard and passed my physical prior to being sworn in. During my medical exam, I informed the doctor I had prior surgery on my chest at age 12-13, the doctor said it would not be a problem. While in basic training, I had consistent pain in my chest area. The Army doctor examined me and informed me I should have never been allowed to join, never allowed to enlist. I was sent home due to this medical reason. Years later, around 4 years ago, while getting a scan for my lower back disc I had injured, the doctors discovered I was born with a condition called spinal stenosis. I never knew of this condition until images where taken. I have stenosis of the neck and spine. I never knew of it but feel this was a cause of me being unable to finish basic training.” c. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. His DD 214 for the period of Service under consideration shows the then Army National Guard Soldier entered active duty for initial entry training on 5 May 1992 and was discharged 8 June 1992 under authority provided by paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (17 September 1990): Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards. d. The applicant was referred to an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) for a chest wall pain IAW paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200. EPSBDs are convened IAW paragraph 7-12 of AR 40-400, Patient Administration. This process is for enlisted Soldiers who within their first 6 months of active service are found to have a preexisting condition which does not meet the enlistment standard in chapter 2 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, but does meet the chapter 3 retention standard of the same regulation. The fourth criterion for this process is that the preexisting condition was not permanently aggravated by their military service. e. From the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings (DA Form 4707) dated 4 May 1992: “History of EPTS [existed prior to service] Present Illness: Surgical correction of pectus carinatum defect at age 13. Well documented in medical record, copy of repair, etc. Since then, has been very sedentary especially in regards to upper body conditioning. Subjective Findings: Complains of pain with pushups, pull ups, and upper body activity since start of BCT [basic combat training] two weeks ago. Objective Findings: Well-healed surgical scar 5 cm in subxiphoid region, right distal ¼ of sternum absent on palpation, very poor musculature development; right pectoralis major [muscle] very atrophic … Lab and X-Ray Results: Lower 1/4 sternum surgically absent. Diagnosis: Status post-surgical repair of pectus carinatum with post-operative atrophy. Recommendations: It is recommended that this soldier be separated from the U.S. Army for failure to meet medical procurement standards IAW Chapter 2, para 2-39c, AR 40-501. EPTS: Yes. Service aggravated: No. Soldier does meet medical retention standards IAW Chapter 3, AR 40-501.” f. Paragraph 2-29k of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness (1 July 1987), states “Any deformity, abnormality, defect, or disease that impairs general functional ability to such an extent as to prevent satisfactory performance of military duty” is a cause for rejection of enlistment. g. On 26 May 1992, the EPSBD determined the condition had existed prior to service, failed enlistment standards, had not been permanently aggravated by his military service, and was not compatible with continued service. On 29 May 1992, the applicant agreed with these findings and requested separation from the Army. h. Review of her records in JLV shows he has not registered with VA. i. An uncharacterized discharge is given to individuals who separate prior to completing 180 days of military service, or when the discharge action was initiated prior to 180 days of service. This type of discharge does not attempt to characterize service as good or bad. Through no fault of his own, he simply had a medical condition which was, unfortunately, not within enlistment standards. j. It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that neither an upgrade of his discharge nor a referral of his case to the DES is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding neither an upgrade of his discharge nor a referral of his case to the DES is warranted. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. Soldiers are authorized and honorable discharge while in entry-level status only if they complete their active-duty schooling and earn their MOS. The Board noted, the applicant was released from active-duty for failure of procurement medical fitness standard no disability, and completed 1 month and 4 days of net active service this period. 2. The Board agreed there is insufficient evidence to support referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and upgrade of his discharge is without merit. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for upgrade of his uncharacterized character of service or referral of his case to the DES. 3. The Board determined DES compensates an individual only for service incurred condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. 4. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ? REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, 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) 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 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. 3. 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 Department of Defense Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). 4. Army Regulation 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. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in a medical evaluation board (MEB); when they receive a permanent physical profile rating of "3" or "4" in any functional capacity factor and are referred by a Military Occupational Specialty 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 or 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 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 are either 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 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 medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. d. 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. e. Paragraph 3-4 states 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. 5. 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. 6. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation. Chapter 2 provides the physical standards for enlistment/induction. Paragraph 2-11 refers to conditions which may result in failure of procurement standards. 7. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes policies and procedures for the completion of the DD Form 214. It stated, based on the specific separation authority, the source of the SPD code and narrative reason for separation was AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes). 8. AR 635-5-1, in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identified the SPD code of "JFT" as being associated with separations under the provisions of chapter 5-11, AR 635-200; the required narrative reason for separation was "Did not meet procurement medical fitness standards-no disability." 9. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who are not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty, active duty for training, or initial entry training will be separated. A medical proceeding conducted by an EPSBD, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty, the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at the time of enlistment, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of AR 40-501, chapter 3. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty service prior to the initiation of separation action. b. An uncharacterized separation is an entry-level separation. A separation will be described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in entry-level status, except when characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized by the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case or when the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. c. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. 8. 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. 9. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1556 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) AR20230002163 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1