IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090017478 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests restoration of his rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6, and removal of a June 2006 DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) and all associated records pertaining thereto from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states that in April 2006 he was assigned to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) and while on temporary duty (TDY) he was accused of indecently exposing himself to a maid who had walked in on him while he was coming out of the shower. He states he was read an Article 15 in May 2006 and demanded a trial by court-martial. However, he states that after discussing the situation with his father, who subsequently contacted his regimental commander, Colonel M____, he was convinced it would be better to accept the Article 15 and, as such, signed another Article 15 in June of 2006 and did not demand trial by court-martial. 3. He states that during the reading of the Article 15 Colonel M____ indicated he was "reducing me to the grade E-4 and forfeiting money as well." He states he heard the word "suspended," but at the same time his rank of E-5 was removed and he believed when he was walking out of the office that he had been reduced to the grade of E-4. He states thereafter he wore the rank of specialist (SPC)/E-4 while at Fort Campbell. However, just a few weeks later, in July, he received pay in the rank of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 and his leave and earnings statement still reflected his rank as SGT/E-5. The applicant states that shortly thereafter he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal. He notes the award orders and his permanent change of station (PCS) orders to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, also reflected his rank as SGT/E-5. 4. The applicant states he was confused and went to his unit first sergeant (1SG) and the only thing the unit 1SG said was to "look at the Article 15 more closely." The applicant states when he looked at the Article 15 he saw the word "suspended" in the punishment portion and noted it was still not clear to him whether all the punishment was suspended or simply the portion that dealt with the forfeiture of pay. He states he continued to wear the rank of E-4 until he arrived at Fort Bragg. 5. The applicant states when he arrived at the Reception Center at Fort Bragg he was told that he was not an E-4, but that he was an E-5, and should wear the rank of an E-5. He states he tried to explain the situation regarding the Article 15, but was told "unequivocally" that he was an E-5. He states he then put on the rank of E-5. After meeting a mentor of his, Master Sergeant R____, he was told by his mentor to bring the matter up to his new company once he signed in. He states he did just that and was told by the Troop D, 73rd Cavalry, unit 1SG that the unit would look into the matter. He states he opened his OMPF to both his unit 1SG and brigade legal staff and there was no Article 15 in his file. He states his unit 1SG told him she had even contacted the 1SG at the 160th SOAR, but she said the 1SG was "being unhelpful and evasive" and that the brigade legal noncommissioned officer (NCO) had a similar problem. 6. He states that ultimately he was told by his unit 1SG at Fort Bragg to continue to wear the rank of SGT/E-5 and that the matter was closed. 7. The applicant states that sometime in 2007 he had occasion to look at his OMPF and saw that there was, in fact, an Article 15 in his record. However, the Article 15 was not in his name but had his social security number on it, it was issued by Colonel M____, and it was from his previous unit, the 160th SOAR. He states he brought this to the attention of his 1SG who told him to contact the U.S. Army Human Resources Command. He states the Article 15 was subsequently removed and when he checked again he found his Article 15 from the 160th SOAR had been filed. He again informed his unit 1SG who instructed him on the process of having the Article 15 transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF. 8. The applicant states he applied to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) with a simple letter and subsequently received a letter from the DASEB indicating that the Article 15 had been transferred. He states that during this time he was promoted to SSG/E-6 while deployed to Iraq and that the letter from DASEB indicated he was a SSG, so he believed at the time that the matter was resolved. 9. The applicant then related information concerning the incidents which led to court-martial charges against him. He states he was ultimately reduced to E-4 "as a result of a counseling statement" and had no opportunity to rebut this decision. He states he never received reduction orders and when he tried to get an identification (ID) card in the rank of E-4, he was told without orders or a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) he could not get an ID card in the rank of E-4. As such, he states he continued to carry an ID card reflecting his rank as SSG. 10. He states that eventually his case went to a general court-martial but he was found not guilty of all charges, including charges related to the allegation that he had falsely worn the rank of SSG and unlawfully taken pay and money as an SSG in the U.S. Army. He states thereafter his acting division sergeant major allowed his original reenlistment contract to be honored and he was permitted to PCS to the Special Warfare Training Center. 11. The applicant states that at no time did he ever attempt to hide the fact that he received an Article 15 from the 160th SOAR or attempt to hide the fact that it appeared his previous commander had intended to reduce him to E-4. He states he firmly believed that if it had been determined that he was, in fact, reduced to the grade of E-4 after arriving at Fort Bragg, by now he would have regained his rank of SSG. He states that throughout this process he acted in good faith and wore the rank he believed he held and was told was his rank. 12. The applicant submitted the following in support of his request: a. DA Form 4430 (Department of the Army Report of Result of Trial); b. promotion orders for E-5, dated 20 May 2004, and promotion orders for E-6, dated 18 October 2007; c. DA Form 2627, dated 12 June 2006; d. orders awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Bronze Star Medal; e. PCS orders to Fort Bragg, dated 17 July 2006, and amendment orders, dated 24 July 2006; f. reenlistment document, dated 21 November 2008; g. NCO evaluation reports; h. DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 23 April 2009; i. Enlisted Record Brief; j. recommendation letters for warrant officer school; k. affidavit from his former squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) I____, U.S. Army Retired; and l. leave and earnings statements for the period June 2006 through December 2007. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests essentially the same relief the applicant is requesting. He asks that the applicant's rank be restored to SSG and that all back pay and allowances from April 2009 be restored to him. 2. Counsel states the applicant seems to be caught between two contrary legal events. He states that one event is the Article 15 he received from Colonel M____ which may have reduced him to the grade of E-4, but which the unit never effectively carried out, while on the other hand, the decision by the commander of the 3rd Squadron, 73rd Cavalry, directing the applicant to wear the rank of E-5 and his subsequent promotion to the rank of SSG. 3. Counsel notes that at the time the applicant received the Article 15 there was evidence that the regimental commander, Colonel M____, may have intended to reduce the applicant to the grade of E-4. However, counsel notes that subsequent evidence indicates that irrespective of this intent, it was never carried out or made effective. He states the applicant was never effectively reduced and military records continued to reflect that he was an SGT in the U.S. Army. 4. Counsel states there is some evidence that it was the intent of the regimental commander to suspend the reduction and as a result the Article 15 was never forwarded to the Finance and Accounting Office and the applicant continued to be paid as an E-5. He notes the applicant's subsequent command, Troop D, 3rd Squadron, 73rd Cavalry, was unable to verify the Article 15 or the reduction and that efforts to find the Article 15 in the applicant's OMPF were unsuccessful. Counsel states that in the end the squadron commander determined the matter should be dropped, that he should continue to wear the rank of SGT/E-5, and that he was then subsequently promoted to SSG and eventually recommended for selection as a warrant officer. 5. Counsel states that at no time did the applicant withhold information from his gaining unit at Fort Bragg and he was ultimately cleared of all charges when he was tried by a general court-martial at Fort Bragg in August 2009. 6. Counsel states that the punishment portion of the Article 15 seems to reflect some ambiguity. He notes that dependent upon one's grammatical interpretation of the sentence, one could conclude either that the entire sentence was suspended or only a portion of the sentence was suspended. He states that the fact that no document was sent to the Finance and Accounting Office to effect a reduction suggests the regimental commander did not intend ultimately to reduce the applicant. Counsel argues that the failure to file a copy of the Article 15 with the Finance and Accounting Office would indicate that it was the unit's intent to suspend this reduction. His subsequent award of the Army Good Conduct Medal only weeks after the Article 15, the fact that his Army Good Conduct Medal and PCS orders reflected that he was an SGT/E-5, and the fact that he continued to be paid as an E-5 support his argument. 7. Counsel states that even if we assume the original intent of the regimental commander was to reduce the applicant it is clear that this intent was not effectively documented and that the applicant's subsequent unit was unable to verify the Article 15 and any reduction in rank. Counsel maintains that as a matter of equity and fairness the applicant was effectively promoted to the grade of SSG and that this is a lawfully recognized rank. He states it is not the applicant's fault for any bureaucratic mishandling of this Article 15 or misinterpretation by a subsequent unit. He states that it is clear that had the 160th SOAR effectively reduced the applicant to E-4, and this had been confirmed by the applicant's subsequent unit, he would have quickly been restored to the rank of E-5 and subsequently have been promoted to the rank of E-6. 8. Counsel states that regardless of how one interprets the history of this matter, reducing a Soldier by way of a counseling statement is simply not lawfully effective. There are no orders restoring him to the rank of E-4. There is no DA Form 4187 reducing him to E-4, and he was not given an opportunity to rebut the allegation that he had not lawfully been promoted to the rank of SSG. Counsel states that ultimately this matter was resolved in front of a general court-martial in which the applicant was fully and completely exonerated. 9. Counsel provides no additional evidence beyond that submitted by the applicant. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted and entered active duty as a Regular Army Soldier on 18 July 2000. On 1 June 2004, while assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, the applicant was promoted to the grade of SGT/E-5. In September 2005 the applicant was assigned to the 160th SOAR at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, initially as a student and then as a shop foreman in December 2005 with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 160th SOAR. 2. On 14 June 2006 the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for wrongfully exposing his penis "in an indecent manner to public view" on "divers occasions between on or about 10 April 2006 and on or about 11 April 2006 while on temporary duty in a hotel room at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center." 3. The DA Form 2627 was administered by Colonel M____, Commander, 160th SOAR, in an open hearing and the applicant indicated he would have a person speak on his behalf and that he would present matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation in person. Following the open hearing, the 160th SOAR commander imposed the following punishment: reduction to SPC/E-4, forfeiture of $967.00 for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 14 August 2006. 4. The applicant did not appeal and the imposing official directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the performance portion of his OMPF. 5. On 17 July 2006, a little more than a month after the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ, orders were issued by Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division, directing the PCS of the applicant from the 160th SOAR to the 82nd Aviation Brigade Replacement Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with an arrival date between 1 and 10 September 2006. Those orders were subsequently amended on 24 July 2006 to include authorization to ship household goods and move dependents. In both the original PCS order and the amendment the applicant's rank was shown as SGT. 6. On 20 July 2006 orders were issued by the 160th SOAR awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 18 July 2003 through 17 July 2006. The regimental adjutant authenticated the orders and the orders indicated the applicant was serving in the rank of SGT. The award was identified as the applicant's first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal when, in fact, it would actually have been his second award. The applicant's initial award of the Army Good Conduct Medal was announced in orders published in November 2003 while he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado. 7. According to an entry in the assignment information section of the applicant's Enlisted Record Brief which he provided, the applicant arrived at Fort Bragg on 28 September 2006 where he was assigned to Troop D, 307th Brigade Support Battalion (BSB), part of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division. 8. In February 2007 the applicant received an annual performance evaluation for the period 1 July 2005 through 30 June 2006 in spite of the fact that he was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, during that period of time and not Fort Bragg. Nonetheless, the report was rendered by members of the applicant's rating chain from the 307th BSB and evaluated his performance of duty as a Maintenance Support Team Chief (E-5) with a Forward Support Troop of the 3rd Squadron, 73rd Cavalry. The applicant's unit, Troop D (Forward Support) of the 307th BSB, was attached to the 3rd Squadron of the 73rd Cavalry, another element of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg. The evaluation report indicated the applicant's overall performance and potential was among the best. 9. According to an entry on the applicant's Enlisted Record Brief, he deployed to Iraq in June 2007. In August 2007 he received an annual performance evaluation report for the period 1 July 2006 through 30 June 2007. This report indicated that at the time of the evaluation, the applicant was assigned to Troop D, 3rd Battalion/Squadron, 73rd Cavalry. The report again evaluated his performance of duties as an E-5 with the Forward Support Troop for the 3rd Squadron, 73rd Cavalry, and included the same senior rater as the previously-rendered evaluation report for the period 1 July 2005 through 30 June 2006. The report again indicated the applicant's overall performance and potential were among the best. 10. On 1 November 2007, while deployed to Iraq, the applicant was promoted to SSG. The orders were issued by the 1st Brigade Combat Team in Iraq. 11. Included with the applicant's request to this Board were copies of three letters recommending the applicant for selection as a warrant officer. Each of the recommendations noted the applicant's outstanding performance of duty. The letters were authored by the 1st Brigade Combat Team's senior warrant officer, the commander of the 3rd Squadron, 73rd Cavalry, and the applicant's unit commander. 12. In July 2008 the applicant redeployed from Iraq having been awarded a Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service. 13. In January 2008 the applicant submitted a request to DASEB that his Article 15 be transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF. He noted in his request that he accepted "responsibility of my actions and have since put this behind me." He noted that it had been over 2 years since the incident and in that time had been promoted to the rank of SSG. He signed the request as an SSG. DASEB approved the applicant's request to transfer the Article 15. In DASEB's summary of the applicant's Article 15, it noted his punishment had consisted of a reduction to SPC/E-4 and a forfeiture of pay, suspended until 14 August 2006. His promotion to E-6 in November 2007 was also noted. 14. In September 2008 the applicant received a performance evaluation report for the period 1 July 2007 through 30 June 2008 in pay grade E-6. This report, like the previous two evaluation reports, commended the applicant's performance of duty and ranked him among the best in overall performance and potential. The rater on this report had previously served as the applicant's senior rater on the June 2006 and June 2007 evaluation reports. 15. On 21 November 2008 the applicant executed a 6-year reenlistment contract and received a lump sum reenlistment bonus as a result. 16. Based on information contained on the DA Form 4430, the applicant was apparently questioned by his unit 1SG on 18 January 2009 regarding events that had taken place between the applicant and a junior enlisted (E-4) female Soldier on 17 January 2009. That same document notes that the applicant also violated an order to stay away from the junior enlisted Soldier on 10 February 2009. Those events and the statements he made to his unit 1SG formed the basis of charges which eventually were tried at a general court-martial in the early fall of 2009. 17. On 23 April 2009 the applicant received a counseling statement from his then squadron commander LTC H____. The squadron commander informed the applicant that the purpose of the counseling was to inform the applicant of the administrative correction to rank being taken by his chain of command. The squadron commander noted that "unbeknownst to this command until recently, on 14 June 2006 you were reduced in rank from E-5 to E-4 as a the result of receiving an Article 15" from his regimental commander at Fort Campbell and that "not knowing of this rank reduction, this command erroneously sent you to the E-6 promotion board on 8 October 2007. Additionally, this promotion board recommended you for and the squadron commander approved of your promotion to E-6, which promotion occurred on 1 November 2007. This promotion to E-6 was erroneous because you were not, at the time you went in front of the E-6 promotion board, legitimately hold[ing] the rank of E-5. Therefore, you were not eligible for promotion." 18. The squadron commander then informed the applicant that he was: a. administratively correcting this erroneous promotion by revoking his E-6 orders, correcting his rank from E-6 to E-5; b. subsequently correcting his rank to E-4 in accordance with the June Article 15 punishment; and c. submitting the aforementioned Article 15 to the Finance and Accounting Office to administratively correct all pay and promotion discrepancies. 19. In August 2009 the applicant was tried by a general court-martial for the following offenses: a. on or about 10 February 2009, disobeying a lawful command to have no contact with a female junior enlisted Soldier; b. on or about 17 January 2009, wrongfully distributing alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21; c. on or about 18 January 2009, stating to his unit 1SG with intent to deceive that he had not contacted the female junior enlisted Soldier he had been ordered not to contact; d. on or about 17 January 2009, wrongfully committing indecent conduct by removing the female junior enlisted Soldier's tank-top and bra; e. between 16 June 2006 and 1 April 2009, stealing U.S. currency in the form of basic pay and basic allowance for housing of a value of more than $17,000.00; f. on or about 1 December 2008, stealing U.S. currency in the form of a Selective Reenlistment Bonus in the amount of $16,000.00; and g. between 1 September 2006 and 1 November 2007, wrongfully and without authority wearing the insignia or grade of SGT. 20. The applicant was found not guilty of each of the charges. 21. In support of his request to this Board, the applicant submitted a statement from his former squadron commander LTC (Retired) I____. LTC I____ states that the matter of the applicant's Article 15 was brought to his attention just prior to the activation of the squadron. LTC I____ states he asked his staff to produce evidence to support the claim that the applicant had received an Article 15 and that the applicant had been reduced by his previous unit. He states that he made sure this was vetted with the 1st Brigade Combat Team's legal section and noted that no concrete evidence was ever produced to verify if the applicant had an Article 15 or whether he was reduced in rank. LTC I____ stated the applicant brought the matter to the attention of his chain of command, was always open and forthright concerning this matter, and when no evidence of the Article 15 could be produced, he consulted with his chain of command and his staff and based on their recommendation, gave guidance to drop the matter. He states that he approved the applicant's promotion while in Iraq and supported his application for warrant officer. LTC I____ states that if had there been evidence of a reduction in rank, neither of these actions would have occurred. 22. LTC I____ was rated in the position of squadron commander of the 3rd Squadron, 73rd Cavalry, between June 2006 and June 2008. The applicant's April 2009 counseling statement was issued by the squadron commander who succeeded LTC I____ in that position. 23. The leave and earnings statements provided by the applicant show he was paid in the rank of E-5 between 1 June 2006 and 31 December 2007. 24. The applicant's date of rank for pay grade E-4 on the September 2009 Enlisted Record Brief is recorded as 14 June 2006, the date the Article 15 was originally imposed. 25. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states that when a person is reduced in grade as a result of an unsuspended reduction, the date of rank in the grade to which reduced is the date the punishment of reduction was imposed. 26. Army Regulation 27-10 also states that the original DA Form 2627 for Soldiers in the grade of E-5 and above will be transmitted by the Soldier's servicing personnel office to the appropriate records custodian for filing in the performance or restricted portion of the OMPF as directed by the imposing authority after review by any superior authority. A photocopy of the completed DA Form 2627 will be forwarded to the Soldier's servicing Finance and Accounting Office if the punishment includes an unsuspended reduction and/or forfeiture of pay. The unit copy of the DA Form 2627 for those Article 15's directed for filing on the performance section of the OMPF will be maintained permanently in the unit nonjudicial punishment file and will be forwarded to the gaining unit upon the Soldier's transfer to another general court-martial convening authority. A photocopy of the completed action with allied documents is also required to be given to the Soldier who was punished. The paralegal specialist will maintain a copy of the completed DA Form 2627 with all allied documents for a period of 2 years. Distribution will be made after the recipient indicates in item 7 that the recipient does not appeal. 27. Army Regulation 27-10 states that imposing commanders, assisted by their supporting paralegal specialist, will ensure that punishments imposed under the provisions of Article 15 are executed. Execution of punishments of reduction and forfeiture of pay will be verified and documented by the mandatory use of the DA Form 5110 (Reconciliation Log) showing the punishment, dates verified, and initials of verifying paralegal specialist. Unit paralegal specialists will use the Unit Commander's Financial Report, the Soldier's leave and earnings statement, or the Daily Record of Financial Transactions to verify execution of forfeitures and reductions. 28. Figure 3-1 (Illustrated sample of DA Form 2627) in Army Regulation 27-10 gives the following as an example for recording punishments in block 4 of the form: Reduction to the grade of private first class, (E-3), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 23 January 2006; and forfeiture of $100.00 pay. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. It appears, based on the information provided by the applicant and in the statement of his former squadron commander, that the applicant believed he had been reduced to the grade of E-4 as a result of his 14 June 2006 Article 15. 2. The recording of the punishment in block 4 of the applicant's DA Form 2627 contains the word "suspended" after both the reduction and forfeiture statements, while Army Regulation 27-10 notes that the word "suspended" would follow only that portion of the punishment which was, in fact, suspended. There is no indication the DA Form 2627 was forwarded to the Finance and Accounting Office until the applicant was counseled in April 2009; there is no indication the record of proceedings was forwarded to the applicant's gaining command at Fort Bragg; he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal shortly after receiving the Article 15; and his reassignment orders from Fort Campbell to Fort Bragg indicate the applicant's grade was E-5, not E-4. Each of these actions provides evidence to conclude that the 160th SOAR commander at Fort Campbell did intend that the reduction, along with the forfeiture of pay, was to be suspended. 3. Even if the 160th SOAR commander's intent was to reduce the applicant as a result of the June 2006 Article 15, the lack of appropriate processing following the imposition of punishment put the applicant in a position for which he should not be held responsible. As noted, the applicant's former squadron commander who would have been in place when the applicant arrived at Fort Bragg, deployed to Iraq, and was promoted, attests to the fact that the applicant clearly informed his chain of command about the Article 15 imposed at Fort Campbell. The fact that applicant was cleared of charges at his August 2009 general court-martial is also sufficiently compelling to conclude that the applicant should not be held responsible for either the sloppy manner in which his Article 15 was processed or the fact that he continued to wear the rank of E-5, was subsequently promoted to E-6, and executed a reenlistment contract which included a reenlistment bonus. 4. In view of the foregoing and in the interest of equity, it would be appropriate to restore the applicant's rank to E-5 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 June 2004 and to then restore his rank of E-6 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 November 2007 as originally promoted and to restore any pay and allowances, including any reenlistment bonus, which may have been lost as a result of the April 2009 filing of the DA Form 2627 with the Finance and Accounting Office and to pay the applicant any back pay and allowances resulting from the restoration of his rank of E-5 and subsequent promotion to E-6. 5. What does appear to have been executed appropriately at some point was the filing of the DA Form 2627 in the applicant's OMPF, as was directed by the imposing authority, and the subsequent transfer by the DASEB of that document to the applicant's restricted section of his OMPF. As such, there is no error or injustice in the current filing of the applicant's DA Form 2627 and no relief in that area is warranted. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___X____ __X____ ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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: a. restoring the applicant's rank to E-5 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 June 2004, b. restoring his rank to E-6 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 November 2007, as originally promoted; and c. by restoring all appropriate pay and allowances, including any reenlistment bonus, which may have been lost as a result of the April 2009 filing of the DA Form 2627 with the Finance and Accounting Office and the execution of his reduction to pay grade E-4. 2. The Board further determined that 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 removal of the Article 15 and all records pertaining thereto from his OMPF. ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090017478 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090017478 12 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1