IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 March 2016
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000941
_________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____X___ ____X___ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION
1. Board Determination/Recommendation
2. Evidence and Consideration
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 March 2016
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000941
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.
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 March 2016
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000941
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:
The applicant defers to counsel.
COUNSEL’S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. Counsel requests:
a. amendment of entries in PartIV (Values/Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Responsibilities) and PartV (Overall Performance and Potential) in the applicant’s DAForm2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 10April 2010 through 3April 2011 or
b. declaration of the period 10April 2010 through 3April 2011 as non-rated time.
2. Counsel states:
a. The NCOER should be amended as follows:
(1) in PartIVb (Competence), change to “Success” and redact the bullet comments relating to security clearance;
(2) in PartIVe (Training), change to “Success,” redact bullet comment stating “personal problems demand excessive time and energy from duties,” and change the other bullet comment to read “demonstrated dedication and sincere effort to improve despite continuous unforeseen family problems”;
(3) in PartVa (Rater Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), change to “Fully Capable”;
(4) in PartVc (Senior Rater Overall Performance), change to “Successful-3”;
(5) in PartVd (Senior Rater Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), change to “Superior-3″; and
(6) in PartVe (Overall Performance and Potential Senior Rater Bullet Comments), delete all senior rater bullet comments.
b. If the Board is not willing to make the requested changes, the applicant requests declaration of the period as non-rated time.
3. Counsel provides 23enclosures outlined in page8 of his brief.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is currently serving on active duty in a U.S.Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status in the rank of staffsergeant.
2. His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains the contested change-of-rater NCOER showing he was rated as the supply sergeant assigned to the 323rdEngineer Company, Spartanburg, SC, for the period 10April 2010 through 3April 2011.
a. PartIi (Administrative Data Rated Months) shows the entry”9″;
b. PartIj (Administrative Data Non-rated Codes) shows the entry”P”; and
c. PartIIIf (Duty Description Counseling Dates) shows he was counseled on 8May 2010, 7August 2010, 13November 2010, and 8January 2011.
3. In PartIVb, he was rated as “Needs Improvement (Some)” for “Competence” by his rater with the following bullet comments:
* could not perform his duties due to security clearance issues
* loss of his security clearance left rear detachment dependent on battalion supply
* takes setbacks in full stride, keeps a positive attitude
* stayed calm and collect[ed], kept composure under pressure
4. In PartIVe, he was rated as “Needs Improvement (Some)” for “Training” by his rater with the following bullet comments:
* personal problems demand excessive time and energy from duties
* demonstrated dedication and sincere effort to improve but limited by continuous unforeseen family requirements
5. In PartVa, he was rated “Marginal” by his rater for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.
6. In PartVc, he was rated “Fair-4” by his senior rater for overall performance.
7. In PartVc, he was rated “Fair-4” for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility by his senior rater with the following bullet comments in PartVe:
* current duty performance does not warrant promotion consideration at this time
* Soldier has numerous issues that negatively affect his day-to-day duties as an AGR Soldier
* potential has been marginally displayed throughout this rating period, refocusing on the seven Army values could assist with increasing his potential for further schooling
* this NCO requires constant oversight to perform his job[;] his personal problems get in the way of his job performance
* Soldier refused to sign
8. The rating officials authenticated the NCOER with their electronic signatures. The reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater evaluations. However, the applicant did not sign the contested report verifying the rating officials, duty description, counseling dates, and Army Physical Fitness Test/Height/Weight entries were correct; that he had seen the completed report; and that he was aware of the appeal process of Army Regulation623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System).
9. The applicant did not provide a copy of his unit’s published rating chain for the period April 2010 to April 2011.
10. His subsequent NCOERs show:
a. He was rated “Fully Capable” by his raters for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility from 4April 2011 to 14February 2013.
b. He was rated “Among the Best” by his raters for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility from 15February 2013 to 14February 2015.
c. He was rated “Successful-3” by his senior raters for overall performance from 4April 2011 to 30April 2012.
d. He was rated “Fair-4” by his senior rater for overall performance from 5May 2012 through 14February 2013.
e. He was rated “Successful-2” and “Successful-1” by his senior raters for overall performance from 15February 2013 to 14February 2015.
f. He was rated “Superior” by his senior raters for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility from 4April 2011 to 14February 2015.
11. Counsel provided a memorandum for record from the Headquarters, 2ndBattalion, 319thRegiment, 3rdBrigade, 104thTraining Division (Leader Training), unit administrator/security manager, dated 1July 2015, verifying the applicant was granted a secret security clearance on 25June 2013.
12. There is no evidence the applicant appealed the contested NCOER to the Army Special Review Board within 3years of the through date of the report.
13. Counsel provided a brief, dated 12December 2015, which states:
a. The applicant received two adverse NCOERs during his assignment with the 323rdEngineer Company. He appealed one NCOER covering the period 5May 2012 through 14February 2013 to the U.S.Army Human Resources Command under the Evaluation Redress Program.
b. The contested NCOER contains highly-significant substantive and administrative errors and it does not accurately reflect the quality of the applicant’s performance during the rated period in question or his potential for future service.
c. The negative aspects of this NCOER were caused by two substantive issues. One was the fact that his security clearance had been suspended. This was entirely due to credit issues. There were never any allegations whatsoever concerning his character or him engaging in any sort of misconduct. The problem with his security clearance was exacerbated by the fact that the unit initially did very little to assist him in resolving this problem or to refer him to anyone who would be willing or able to do so. The question of his security clearance was ultimately resolved and his clearance was then reinstated. He currently has a security clearance.
d. The other problem that formed the basis of the adverse NCOER remarks were caused by the fact that the 323rdEngineer Company had numerous problems with property accountability. The company commander split the property book as the unit was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. The company commander then decided to take a number of items to Afghanistan despite the fact that they had been transferred to the rear detachment property book. This caused numerous problems conducting inventories and maintaining accountability for organizational property. As a result, the applicant was the victim of a situation which had been caused by the company commander.
e. The contested NCOER alleged the applicant could not perform his duties because of security clearance issues. His security clearance had expired and it was not renewed following a periodic reinvestigation. This was entirely due to his credit rating. The lack of a security clearance also restricted his access to Army computers and limited his ability to perform his duties as a unit supply sergeant. The question of his security clearance was ultimately resolved when a new NCO in charge was assigned to the unit who did make the effort to help him.
f. The NCO in charge submitted a statement in support of the applicant’s previous response to the Qualitative Management Program Board. The record also contained a memorandum from a sergeantfirstclass giving a detailed account of the problems the applicant has in regard to his security clearance.
g. The applicant was also experiencing a number of significant personal difficulties during this period. He became the sole parent of his two children when their mother was murdered in their presence. His mother died following a lengthy illness around that time. He also had orthopedic surgery which subsequently led to a blood clot and 4months of convalescent leave. He worked with a financial advisor to try to handle the problem so his security clearance problems could be resolved. He repeatedly asked for assistance and documentation from the commander, but he never received any support from anyone other than the NCO in charge. Within the first 4months of his arrival at his new unit, his security clearance was resolved with issuance of a Secret security clearance.
h. The second problem that formed the basis of the adverse NCOER remarks was caused by the unit’s numerous problems with property accountability. The NCOER contains negative comments which alleged he had been responsible for unit supply problems that had actually been caused by factors which were entirely beyond his control. The existence of this situation as well as the efforts that were required to correct these problems were all verified by the former 391stEngineer Battalion property book officer. She submitted a memorandum which addressed this issue.
i. The applicant was never afforded the opportunity to submit any response at the time he received this evaluation report. The governing regulation does not provide a referral process for NCOERs. Had he been afforded such a right and given the opportunity, he would certainly have done so. He did refuse to sign the NCOER, but this was merely an expression of disagreement and frustration since he never had a chance to submit a meaningful rebuttal.
14. Counsel further states:
a. The NCOER coincided with the time the 323rdEngineer Company deployed to Afghanistan. He was originally supposed to deploy with his unit. However, he had a medical problem which led to a determination that he was medically non-deployable and he was assigned to the rear detachment. Due to numerous problems, this unit was left without a commander. There was no one in command to sign for unit property. Items that were supposed to be left behind at home station were shipped to Afghanistan and this made it extremely difficult to account for them. It was frequently necessary to contact the main body in Afghanistan to determine the status of items that were still on the rear detachment property book. The applicant was able to resolve the property problems and it was noted in his NCOER for the period 18September 2011 to 30April 2012. However, his company commander alleged the applicant caused these problems.
b. While the applicant did receive an unsatisfactory NCOER for the period 10April 2010 to 3April 2011, this NCOER does not accurately reflect either his performance during the entire rating period or his potential for future service in the Army. As an NCO, he has always sought and taken responsibility for his actions. However, in addition to the several substantive and material issues noted, there were also several administrative errors surrounding the nature of the problematic NCOER. The NCOER clearly violates the requirements of Army Regulation623-3, required initial counseling did not occur and none of the reported subsequent counseling sessions ever actually occurred, and the evaluation comments are materially inconsistent to a point which unfairly prejudices his overall performance review during this period.
c. The NCOER was also reflective of a rating chain which did not even exist.
The detachment commander had been released from active duty. No change-of-rater NCOERs were ever completed at this time. The battalion commander never acted to appoint a new commander or to establish or publish a new rating chain. The unit also failed to meet the requirements of chapter3 of Army Regulation623-3 by completely neglecting to conduct an initial counseling or any periodic counseling. This NCOER also failed to note the applicant had undergone orthopedic surgery and had spent 4months on convalescent leave during this period. The NCOER supposedly covers a 12-month period. However, it only contains reference to 9rated months. It does not say anything that provides any explanation of the reason for this. The presence of an administrative error of this magnitude is a clear indication that the unit failed to follow the requirements of Army Regulation623-3.
d. The NCOER clearly violated the rating scheme requirements of Army Regulation623-3, paragraph2-1. This regulation mandates that established rating schemes will correspond to the chain of command within an organization and changes to the scheme cannot be made retroactively. The 323rdEngineer Company did not have any established rating scheme for NCOs in the rear detachment. It is readily apparent that the failure of the command to establish and publish a rating plan makes this NCOER a fabrication designed to create an appearance of having followed Army regulations.
e. This NCOER purports to cover the entire rating period beginning on 10April 2010. However, it totally disregards the fact that the original rear detachment commander was released from active duty. The proper course of action would have been to complete a change-of-rater report at that time.
f. A captain provided a memorandum in which he describes the situation in the 323rdEngineer Company and which clearly acknowledges the fact that the unit failed to designate a new rear detachment commander as well as a new rating plan after the rear detachment commander was released from active duty.
Since the NCOER in question was rendered by a rating chain which was not consistent with any published rating plan, it is not a valid NCOER. Therefore, this entire period should probably constitute non-rated time.
g. The applicant never received any initial counseling session. He never received any of the other counseling sessions listed on the NCOER. There are no forms to verify that any such counseling ever occurred.
h. The applicant’s problems while assigned to the 323rdEngineer Company were largely caused by bad leadership at the unit level. They did very little if anything to help him succeed and blamed him for problems which were clearly beyond his control. After they had given the applicant an NCOER which was clearly unjust, they also failed to inform him of his right to ask for a Commander’s Inquiry or to advise him to go to the nearest active duty installation (FortJackson, SC) to seek help from an Army Legal Assistance Office. He was never actually advised of his substantive and procedural rights until he contacted counsel in June 2015.
i. In addition to numerous favorable statements from members of his current unit, he also received statements of support from personnel from the 323rdEngineer Company and its parent unit, the 391stEngineer Battalion. He also obtained a statement from the supervisory staff administrator of the 391stEngineer Battalion. This statement clearly describes the fact that the 323rdEngineer Company was a unit with a lot of problems which existed prior to the applicant’s arrival. Notwithstanding these numerous problems and his own relative inexperience as a unit supply sergeant, the applicant did the best he could under difficult circumstances while simultaneously dealing with personal and family tragedies.
j. Paragraph9 of the 391stEngineer Battalion supervisory staff administrator’s letter contains the clearest and most accurate summary of the circumstances of the applicant’s situation: “SSG [Applicant] took over a unit in bad shape logistically and did everything he could to straighten out the unit. I believe that he left it in better shape than it was when he started his tour as the AGR supply sergeant. I believe that he was transferred to a better unit and was able to show himself to be a valued member of the team.”
k. There is absolutely nothing in the record which would even suggest that the applicant has ever been implicated in any sort of misconduct or substandard performance. This is simply a case in which a fine NCO received an adverse NCOER while assigned to a single badly-run unit that had a negative command climate. Despite significant professional difficulties and personal tragedies, he persevered in an effort to make the best of a difficult situation. Although he was unfairly blamed for a situation which he did nothing to cause, he was able to successfully resolve many of these problems. After leaving that assignment and going to an organization which was being properly run, he soon began to make a highly-positive impact on the unit and this has been recognized by receipt of outstanding NCOERs since being assigned to the 639thTransportation Company. He is exactly the type of NCO who the Army should be seeking to retain and favorable action on this application will help to ensure this outcome.
15. Counsel provided the following statements from members of his unit during the contested rating period.
a. The Supervisory Staff Administrator (senior rater for the contested NCOER) for the 391stEngineer Battalion states the climate at the 323rdEngineer Company was poor. The unit was behind in all areas of administration including NCO evaluations. The company was mobilized to FortMcCoy, WI, in 2010. The new rear detachment commander broke his collar bone, he was hospitalized, and his wife was killed in a car accident. He ended up covering for the rear detachment commander. He was the acting commander and did not know about the circumstances involving the applicant. The applicant was on convalescent leave and caring for his mother. He was told the applicant could not be reached and that his NCOER had to be finalized. He did not meet senior rater qualifications and based his comments on the rater’s comments. He believes the environment was very poor at the time of the NCOER and the personnel left behind had a bad opinion of the applicant. There were a number of incidents that did not involve the applicant, but he bore the blame. The applicant was trained in the role of supply sergeant by the prior supply sergeant who was very ineffective and did not protect the unit or the commander. The applicant took over a unit in bad shape logistically and did everything he could to straighten out the unit. He believes the applicant left it in better shape than it was when he started his tour as the AGR supply sergeant.
b. The 391stEngineer Battalion property book officer attests the applicant developed tremendously as a supply sergeant. He was one of the strongest supply sergeants within the battalion. He was reliable and could be trusted to accomplish all assigned tasks. The applicant suffered two great tragedies in his life. His children lost their mother forcing him to become a single parent and his mother became ill with cancer. He was torn between family and work. This should have been a time in his life where his chain of command was most supportive of his circumstances. This simply did not take place. The 323rdEngineer Company deployed to Afghanistan in 2010, but the applicant did not deploy due to personal issues. The unit failed to follow instructions identifying equipment and packed everything for the deployment. Consequently, she and her property book NCO had to sort out the mess. There was more chaos upon redeployment of the 323rdEngineer Battalion. Several financial liability investigations of property loss were generated based on losses of equipment.
c. A retired mastersergeant (rater for the contested NCOER) states she served with the applicant from April 2010 to April 2011. She was assigned as the rear detachment first sergeant while the unit was deployed to Afghanistan. The applicant was assigned as the unit supply sergeant. When she arrived, the applicant’s security clearance had expired and he could not access his computer and could not perform his duties. She could not rate him on duties that he could not perform. She never received an explanation as to why his security clearance expired or why it was taking so long to reissue. The applicant always demonstrated a sincere effort to get his personal life on track. During all the issues he faced, he remained positive, looked for solutions, accepted responsibility for his failures, and was accountable for his actions.
d. A platoon sergeant contends the applicant was a very vital part of the team. His knowledge and experience as a supply sergeant were very beneficial to the unit and the success of the unit. There were several occasions when the applicant went above and beyond duty to ensure the success of the company, even working on his days off. Due to the applicant’s medical condition, he was left behind as part of the company’s rear detachment. CaptainP____ (senior rater for contested NCOER) had nothing to do with the 323rdEngineer Company except that he was a military technician serving as the battalion supervisory staff administrator in his civilian role. The company executive officer during the deployment would attempt to blame supply issues on the applicant. The rater was never formally assigned to the unit and she did not have a valid position for the military occupational specialty she held. She had no impact on the unit or the applicant. Upon returning from deployment, CaptainD____ assumed command of the company and he didn’t like AGR Soldiers. The captain would do things that were not in accordance with Army regulations. The captain constantly tried to put a strain on him and the applicant and find ways to make their jobs miserable. They always gave 100percent of their efforts and never once got behind on their jobs. There was never a rating scheme in place in the 323rdEngineer Company. The disorganized rating system was a problem that had an impact on a number of NCOs and created an inconsistent and unfair situation throughout the unit. Prior to the unit deploying, the applicant had an issue with his security clearance due to his credit rating. He repeatedly asked for assistance, but he never received support. His security clearance was granted within the first 6months of his arrival at his new unit.
16. Counsel provided the following statements from members of the applicant’s new unit.
a. The battalion commander of the 639thTransportation Company attests the applicant immediately embraced and executed the duties of the supply sergeant position of a new transportation company with zero Soldiers and one full-time sergeantfirstclass. The 639thTransportation Company went from 0 to 120assigned Soldiers during his command tenure. The applicant voluntarily mentored new pre-basic training Soldiers. He ensured that Soldiers were fully equipped to perform transportation missions. The applicant’s enthusiasm, sense of humor, and undaunted support of the 639thTransportation Company Soldiers led to solid team building, espritdecorps, and sense of wellbeing.
b. The battalion executive officer contends the applicant has been very instrumental in assisting incoming Soldiers with all aspects of supply. He is very trustworthy, dedicated, and committed to not only his specific job and duties, but to other tasks that were assigned to him. He is one of the best Soldiers he has dealt with in his 22years in the Army.
c. A firstlieutenant states the applicant possesses all the Army values flawlessly. He has been a paragon for those around him to emulate. He has been the best supply NCO he has ever worked with since he has been in the Army. The applicant is always punctual, alert, and ready to dive into action. He frequently volunteers for difficult or complex projects and always does an immense amount of research before starting something new.
d. Several Soldiers attest:
* the applicant assisted with a change-of-command inventory which had no deficiencies
* he has been a mentor to the Soldiers in his platoon
* he is a natural leader, intelligent, capable, dedicated, and personable young man
* his character as a Soldier and leader is impeccable
* he has unlimited potential
* he is a great asset
* he portrays all the Army values
* through personal initiative and vigilance, he cleared all known credit issues
* he displays the qualities and motivation of an outstanding Soldier
1. Army Regulation623-3 provides that an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier’s OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. The regulation also states the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.
a. Paragraph2-19 (Loss of a Rating Official or Rated Soldier) provides that special rules apply when a rating official is eliminated from the rating chain or is unable to render an evaluation of the rated Soldier. These situations occur when a rating official dies, is declared missing, is relieved of his or her position or duties for cause, or becomes mentally or physically incapacitated to such an extent that he or she is unable to render an objective or accurate evaluation. A determination will be made whether the minimum rating period (90 or more calendar days) for an evaluation report has been met. If the minimum rating period has not been met, the period is non-rated and a new rater will be designated.
b. Paragraph3-40 (Change of Rater Report) states a change-of-rater report is mandatory when the rated NCO ceases to serve under the immediate supervision of the rater and minimum rating qualifications have been met.
c. Chapter4 defines the Evaluation Report Redress Program and provides guidance regarding redress programs, including Commanders’ Inquiries and appeals. Paragraph4-8 states substantive appeals will be submitted within 3years of an NCOER through date. Failure to submit an appeal within this time period will require the applicant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR.
2. Department of the Army Pamphlet623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), Table3-17 (Reason Codes for Non-Rated Time), shows codeP represents “patient (under doctor’s care and unable to perform assigned duties/includes convalescent leave).”
1. Counsel contends the contested NCOER contains highly-significant substantive and administrative errors and it does not accurately reflect the quality of the applicant’s performance during the rated period in question or his potential for future service.
2. Although counsel contends the applicant was never afforded the opportunity to submit a response to the NCOER because the governing regulation does not provide an appeal process, chapter4 of Army Regulation623-3 defines the Evaluation Redress Program and provides guidance regarding redress programs, including Commanders’ Inquiries and appeals.
3. Although counsel contends the applicant never received any of the counseling sessions listed in the NCOER, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence to support this contention.
4. Counsel also contends the 323rdEngineer Company did not have an established rating scheme for NCOs in the rear detachment, it was not a valid NCOER, and the entire period should constitute non-rated time. However, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence that the rating chain reflected in the applicant’s NCOER was not the proper rating chain.
5. The evidence of record does not support counsel’s contention that the NCOER failed to note the applicant had undergone orthopedic surgery and had spent 4months on convalescent leave during this period. The reason code for non-rated time shown on the contested NCOER represents patient (under doctor’s care and unable to perform assigned duties/includes convalescent leave). He was rated for 9months.
6. Counsel contends that a change-of-rater NCOER should have been completed when the rear detachment commander was released from active duty due to medical and personal issues. The governing regulation states a change-of-rater report will be submitted when the rated NCO ceases to serve under the immediate supervision of the rater and minimum rating qualifications (90days) have been met. In the absence of a published rating scheme for the period in question, there is no evidence and counsel provided no evidence showing the applicant met the criteria for a change-of-rater NCOER any earlier than the change-of-rater NCOER rendered for the period 10April 2010 through 3April 2011.
7. The evidence of record provided by counsel supports the rater’s bullet comment that the applicant “could not perform his duties due to security clearance issues.” Counsel provided a statement from the rater wherein she stated:
* she served with the applicant from April 2010 to April 2011
* she was assigned as the rear detachment first sergeant while the unit was deployed to Afghanistan
* the applicant was assigned as the unit supply sergeant
* the applicant’s security clearance had expired when she arrived at the unit and he could not access his computer and could not perform his duties
* she could not rate him on duties that he could not perform
8. The validity of the rater’s bullet comment stating “personal problems demand excessive time and energy from duties” was carefully considered. The evidence shows the applicant had many personal problems (his children’s mother was murdered and he became a single parent, his mother was ill and died of cancer, and he had medical conditions) during the rated period. There is no evidence and counsel provided no evidence that shows his personal problems did not demand excessive time and energy from his duties.
9. The statements provided by the applicant were carefully considered. However, counsel has not provided sufficient evidence to show the raters’ assessments and comments on the NCOER accepted for inclusion in the applicant’s OMPF did not represent the raters’ considered opinions and objective judgment at the time of preparation.
10. In order to justify removal of a report, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that:
* the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration
* action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice
ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000941
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000941
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS