IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  26 February 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018479 


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 recharacterization of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) (undesirable) discharge to an honorable or a medical discharge.

2.  He states, in effect, that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and contends that PTSD was the catalyst for his misconduct.  He received the Purple Heart for shrapnel wounds.

3.  He provides:

* two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods ending 27 March 1963 and 13 April 1968
* Memorandum, Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, dated 3 September 2014, from the Secretary of Defense
* Letter, dated 26 June 2002, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* Letter, dated 29 November 2002, from a Certified Trauma Specialist, PTSD Expert, Institute for Crime and Trauma Survivors (the last page of the letter was omitted) 
* Health Summaries from the Portland VA Medical Center, printed on
2 January 2013


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 March 1961 and was discharged on 27 March 1963 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 28 March 1963 for a period of 6 years in military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Crewman).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 31 (Foreign Service), he served in Germany from 5 August 1961 to 14 August 1964 and in Vietnam from 21 September 1965 to 14 September 1966.

	b.  item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), his highest grade held was specialist four (SP4)/E-4 with a date of rank of 23 April 1966.

	c.  item 38 (Record of Assignments), he served with Company A, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment during his assignment in Vietnam.

	d.  item 38, he received conduct and efficiency ratings of "Excellent", "Good," and "Unsatisfactory."

	e.  item 40 (Wounds), he was wounded in his left elbow by mortar shrapnel on 25 August 1966.

	f.  item 41 (Awards and Decorations), he was awarded the Purple Heart by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, General Order Number 2473, dated 27 September 1966.

	g.  item 44 (Time Lost), he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 September to 24 November 1964, 4 to 5 March 1967, and 7 October to 4 November 1967.
4.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on eight occasions for the following offenses:

* on 22 October 1963, he was apprehended by Military Police for illegal possession of a DD Form 345 (Liberty Pass)
* on 30 March 1964, he was apprehended by Military Police for being absent from his unit without proper authority
* on 14 June 1964, he was absent from bed check 
* on 24 October 1966, he operated his privately owned vehicle with no operator's license in his possession and failed to yield the right of way
* on 24 October 1966, he failed to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer on two separate occasions
* he was AWOL from 20 to 25 January 1967
* on 11 February 1967, he failed to obey a lawful regulation
* he was AWOL from 4 to 5 March 1967
* on 28 March 1967, he failed to obey a lawful order
* he left his place of restriction on 1 February 1968 until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 2 February 1968

5.  He was reduced from private first class (PFC)/E-3 to private (PV2)/E-2 on 20 March 1968 as a result of his misconduct on 1 and 2 February 1968.  

6.  On 14 March 1967, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was determined to have no neuropsychiatric diseases.  The psychiatrist stated the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any appropriate administrative action.

7.  On 16 November 1967, he underwent a medical examination for separation action.  In block 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses) of his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), the examining physician indicated the applicant was diagnosed with passive-aggressive [reaction].  The physician referred to a certificate, dated 18 December 1967 from the U.S. Army Dispensary, Fort Lewis, WA; however, this document is not available.  

8.  On 16 November 1967, the company commander notified the applicant of the proposed action to effect his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness.  He was advised of his rights.  

9.  The applicant's acknowledgement of notification of separation action and election of rights are not available.  


10.  On 18 December 1967, he underwent another psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed as having passive-aggressive reaction.  The psychiatrist opined that the applicant was responsible for his own behavior, knew the difference between right and wrong, and he could adhere to the right.  The psychiatrist also stated the applicant could understand and participate in any proceedings that required his cooperation.  Further, the psychiatrist stated the applicant did not suffer from any mental diseases or derangement which would qualify him for consideration under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).

11.  On 15 January 1968, the company commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.

12.  On 9 April 1968, the separation authority approved the request for a waiver of a hearing by a board of officers, directed the applicant's discharge from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and ordered him to be reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade.

13.  On 13 April 1968, he was reduced to private (PV1)/E-1 and was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness.  He completed 5 years and 16 days of active military service with 97 days of lost time.

14.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 April 1968 does not show he was awarded or authorized any awards during the period covered by the report.  

15.  His service record is void of documentation which indicates he was diagnosed with a condition that required medical processing while he was on active duty.  

16.  His service record doesn't indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

17.  A VA letter, dated 26 June 2002, from a Staff Clinician, stated, in effect:

   a.  The applicant was a client of the outpatient mental health clinic at the Portland Oregon VA Medical Center from October 1998 to January 2001.  He was referred for evaluation and treatment of symptoms of PTSD by his counselor at the Salem Oregon Vet Center.  He had been a client there intermittently since 1989.

   b.  The applicant served in the U.S. Army from 1961 to 1964.  His "Cold-War" tour was served in the infantry on the Germany-Czechoslovakia border and at Checkpoint Charlie.  He received an honorable discharge, then reenlisted and was sent to Vietnam from 1965 to 1966, where he served as a forward observer for an 81 millimeter mortar crew and was wounded in combat.  

   c.  The applicant reported that, upon his return state-side, the Army lost his pay records twice and he fell behind in paying his bills, developed a bad attitude, and was AWOL several times.  The applicant also reported that residing near the firing range on base was especially bothersome to him and his description of his reactivity and level of arousal would suggest he was likely suffering from an acute stress response which developed into PTSD without treatment.  During this same period of time, the applicant suffered marital and financial problems.  He ultimately received an undesirable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1968.  

   d.  The applicant applied for a service-connected disability due to PTSD in 1972 and 1989, but was denied.  He unsuccessfully lobbied to have his second discharge upgraded, including enlisting the help of his Congressional Representative.

   e.  It appears the applicant meets Criterion A for diagnosis with PTSD (exposure to a traumatic even or events which involved actual or threatened death or serious injury and his response involved intense fear/helplessness/horror).  The applicant has re-experienced the traumatic event(s) through recurrent intrusive recollection and dreams.  

   f.  The applicant has demonstrated a numbing of general responsiveness through feelings of detachment/estrangement from others, restricted range of affect, periods of time when he has had diminished interest or participation in activities or interactions with others.  He reported symptoms of increased arousal including insomnia and hypervigilance.  These symptoms have caused significant impairment in important areas of functioning and have persisted over many years with dysthymic mood.  

18.  He also provides a letter (pages 2 and 6 were not submitted), dated 
29 November 2002, from a Certified Trauma Specialist at the Institute for Crime and Trauma Survivors who stated:

   a.  The Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) administered on 15 November 2002 was developed by J.B., Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, University of California School of Medicine.  The TSI measures ten different sub-scales:  Depression, Anger, Dissociation, Sexual Concerns, Dysfunctional Sexual Behavior, Self-Endangering Behavior, Post-Traumatic Intrusion, Post-Traumatic Avoidance, and Impaired Self-reference.

	b.  The applicant measured statistically significant scores above the norm on three of the ten sub-scales:  Anxiety-2.92; Post-Traumatic Intrusion-2.69; and Impaired Self-reference-2.83 with an overall cumulative score of 2.32.  

	c.  The Impact of Event Scale (IES) was administered on 15 November 2002 and designed by M.H., Department of Psychiatry, University of California at San Francisco.  IES alone does not diagnose PTSD or necessarily assess a person's ability to function.  IES has four scales: 0-8-subclinecal range; 9-25-mild range; 25-43-moderate range; and over 43-severe rank of PTSD.  The IES is further broken down into Intrusion and Avoidance scales.  The applicant's total score was 75 points, with Intrusion-35 points and Avoidance-40 points.  The applicant is in the severe range of PTSD.  

	d.  The Davidson Trauma Scale (DTS) was created by J.R.T.D., M.D., Duke University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and was administered on 15 November 2002.  The DTS is a 17 item self-rated scale for PTSD intended for use with any adult who has been exposed to a serious trauma.  The total DTS score can range from 0 to 136 and three symptom clusters.  The applicant's sub-scores: Intrusion-19, Avoidance/Numbing-18, and Hyperarousal-27, with a total score of 64 points.  This suggests that the applicant has significant PTSD.

	e.  The Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related PTSD, was developed by T.M.K., PhD, Boston Veterans Administration Medical Center and was administered on 15 November 2002.  The Mississippi Scale is a 35-item self-report psychological assessment instrument that can be used as an adjunctive measure in making a PTSD diagnosis and is derived from the criteria for the disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  The applicant's scores are not available.  

19.  He also provides Health Summaries from the Portland VA Medical Center which reports on his diagnosis of PTSD and PTSD symptoms.  

20.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 6a provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of the following conditions existed:  (1) because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; (2) sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; (3) drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; (4) an established pattern of shirking; (5) an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts; and (6) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees or judgments).  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 

   a.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

22.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The unfitness must be of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his/her employment on active duty.

23.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his/her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was unable to perform his/her duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation rendered the member unfit.

24.  PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders.  In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.
From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis).  The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 

25.  PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor.  In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic.  Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress.  Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome.  Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified.  Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat.  Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations.

26.  The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013.  This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder.  The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience.  The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters:  intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity.  The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition.

	a.  Criterion A, stressor:  The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) 

		(1)  Direct exposure. 

		(2)  Witnessing, in person.

		(3)  Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma.  If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental.

		(4)  Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures.

	b.  Criterion B, intrusion symptoms:  The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) 

		(1)  Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. 

		(2)  Traumatic nightmares. 

		(3)  Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. 

		(4)  Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. 

		(5)  Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. 

	c.  Criterion C, avoidance:  Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required)

		(1)  Trauma-related thoughts or feelings.

		(2)  Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations).

	d.  Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood:  Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs).

		(2)  Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous").

		(3)  Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences.

		(4)  Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame).

		(5)  Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities.
Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement).

		(6)  Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. 

	e.  Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity:  Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Irritable or aggressive behavior.

		(2)  Self-destructive or reckless behavior.

		(3)  Hypervigilance.

		(4)  Exaggerated startle response.

		(5)  Problems in concentration.

		(6)  Sleep disturbance.

	f.  Criterion F, duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. 

	g.  Criterion G, functional significance:  Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational).

	h.  Criterion H, exclusion:  Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 

27.  As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.  

28.  In view of the foregoing, 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 UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

29.  BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies.  Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis.  When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered:

* Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge?
* Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service?
* Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms?
* Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service?
* Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case?
* Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event?
* Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated?
* How serious was the misconduct?


30.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time.  Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge.  In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service.  Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC.  Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct.  PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings, for misconduct, were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The applicant's characterization of service was commensurate with the reason for discharge and his overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations.

2.  At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD.  However, both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion.

3.  Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service.

4.  A review of the applicant's record shows he served in Vietnam and did not commit any serious misconduct.  He has subsequently been diagnosed with PTSD by competent mental health professionals.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe his PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 


5.  His disciplinary history shows he received eight NJP for various minor offenses, two for being AWOL.  He has a record of 97 days of lost time.  It is concluded that PTSD was a causative factor of his AWOL that ultimately led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade of PV2/E2 effective 
19 March 1968.

6.  His service record is void of any medical documentation or other evidence that indicate any medical condition was incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  

7.  His continued performance of assigned duties supports a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury related to his service that prevented him from performing his duties.  

8.  Absent evidence that he incurred any medical conditions while he was entitled to basic pay or were the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty, he would not have been eligible for consideration by an MEB/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and thus not eligible for a medical discharge.

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 issuing the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 April 1968 to show his characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions and his rank/grade as PV2/E-2 with an effective date of 19 March 1968.

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 recharacterization of his UOTHC discharge to an honorable or medical discharge.  



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140018479



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018479



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1