IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013839 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013839 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013839 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, in effect, correction of the applicant's military records to remove a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 25 October 2013 from his official military personnel file (OMPF). Additionally, he requests correction of the applicant's records to reflect that his selection for involuntary retirement on 19 June 2014 and his reduction in grade from the rank of captain (CPT)/O-3 to first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 did not occur. 2. Counsel states the applicant was separated from the Army on 7 February 2015, pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) chapter 6. He further states: a. On 19 June 2014, the applicant was notified he was to be involuntarily separated from the Army pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 638, Selective Early Retirement. On 31 March 2015, he received official orders informing him he was to be reduced in retired grade from CPT/O-3 to 1LT/O-2 for the reported reason that his service in the grade of CPT was not satisfactory. b. He continues by expounding on the applicant's performance and accomplishments during his military career, first as an enlisted Soldier and later as an officer. He cites the military schools the applicant attended, the awards he received, his overall performance ratings, and the outstanding comments he received during his military service. c. On 27 March 2013, an AR 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) investigation was initiated by the commanding officer of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, HI. The investigation determined whether the applicant had a prohibited relationship with a U.S. Navy Reserve (USNR) Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), fraternized with the same USNR NCO, had a prohibited financial relationship, or sent elicit pictures to her. The estranged husband of the NCO initiated the allegations against the applicant on 4 February 2013. d. As a result of this AR 15-6 investigation, on 25 October 2013, the applicant received a GOMOR. The GOMOR reprimanded the applicant for entering a prohibited relationship with the USNR NCO, sending obscene photos to her, and engaging in an inappropriate financial relationship with the USNR NCO. On 3 November 2013, the applicant filed a written rebuttal to this GOMOR explaining the following: * when he first met the USNR NCO in Afghanistan (who later became his fiancée), she told him she was divorced * she told him she was leaving the Navy Reserves because she did not make promotion to Navy Chief (E-7) * he had fallen in love with her * he understood that they were both single and she was getting out of the military upon her return to the U.S. from Afghanistan * they were never physically intimate with each other during their tour in Afghanistan e. He further explained that because he intended to make the Army a career, he would never have asked someone to marry him that could not stand beside him at every milestone of his career. He wrote, "I believed she was single and had exited the military" when he later became engaged to the USNR NCO. He explained that the USNR NCO viewed herself as a full-time schoolteacher and conducted herself as such, and they eventually started the process of having a home built in Charlotte, NC. f. In a sworn statement from the applicant's friend, dated 30 October 2013, he confirmed that when he first met the USNR NCO, the applicant introduced her as his fiancée. The friend also confirms that if the applicant had any knowledge that the USNR NCO had deceived him about anything, he would not have begun a relationship with her. g. A comprehensive polygraph examination was conducted on 9 June 2015 that determined the results of the polygraph support the conclusion that there were no deception indicated by the physiological responses to the test stimulus questions during the examination. h. In a sworn statement, a 1LT confirms he first met the USNR NCO with the applicant in Hawaii after she redeployed to the U.S. He said he understood the USNR NCO was a schoolteacher who lived in New York and was divorced and in a custody battle for her children. i. Memorandums from the Commander, 311th Signal Command, Assistant Chief of Staff, G6, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) Operations Chief, and the Commander, Operations Company, Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, USARPAC all recommend that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's local file. They attest to the applicant's dedication to service and unlimited potential. The Commander, Operations Company states that he does not believe that the Army or the command gains from filing the GOMOR permanently. j. The applicant appealed, without legal counsel, to the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) concerning the findings and recommendation of the AR 15-6 investigation. On 30 December 2014, the DAIG concluded the following: * the applicant had a prohibited relationship with a married woman was removed from the IGAR's (Inspector General Action Requests) data base * the allegation that the applicant had a prohibited financial relationship with the USNR NCO was removed from the IGAR's data base * the allegation that the applicant sent illicit photographs to the USNR NCO was removed from the IGAR's data base * the DAIG found that the allegation that the applicant fraternized with a USNR NCO was found to be substantiated k. He contends the applicant's selection for early retirement and subsequent reduction in grade were the direct results of the GOMOR and based on the facts of this case, is an error or injustice for the following reasons: (1) The relationship between the applicant and the NCO did not constitute any of the defined prohibited relationships listed in AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy). (2) The applicant's entire chain of command recommended that the subject GOMOR be filed locally rather than in his official military personnel file (OMPF). (3) The DAIG, found three of the allegations contained in the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation and GOMOR, to include the findings of prohibited intimate relationship, prohibited financial relationship, and sending illicit photographs to the NCO were all removed from the IGARs' database. (4) The applicant has demonstrated, both as an enlisted man and later as an officer, that he has consistently demonstrated excellent military duty performance and adhered to, and respected, all seven Army Values. (5) The applicant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence herein that his selection for early retirement and reduction in military rank to 1LT is an "error or an injustice" as defined by Title 10 USC section 1552, and which this Board has the jurisdiction, authority, and congressional mandate to correct. 3. Counsel provides: * Counsel's memorandum of facts, law, and argument in support of the application of [Applicant], dated 8 July 2015 * Certificate of Training, Air Assault School, dated 24 April 1997 * 12 DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) and DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering various rated periods from September 1989 through July 1999 to 22 June 2012 through 31 January 2013 * Certificate of Training, Equal Opportunity Leaders Course, from 29 March to 13 April 1999 * Certificate of Achievement, dated 27 November 1999 * Scroll of Appreciation, from August 1999 to January 2000 * Bachelor of Arts Degree, dated 7 August 2009 * Memorandum, subject: Appointment as AR 15-6 Investigating Officer (IO) - Allegations of Impropriety Against [Applicant], dated 27 March 2013 * GOMOR, dated 25 October 2013 * Applicant's response to the GOMOR, dated 3 November 2013 with two attached DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 30 October 2013 and 4 November 2013 * Five Memoranda recommending local filing of the GOMOR * Letter from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)dated, 19 June 2014 * Letter from the DAIG, dated 30 December 2014 * Orders Number 090-0006, dated 31 March 2015 * Officer Record Brief (ORB) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Polygraph Examination, dated 6 September 2015 * Professional Vitae CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. After having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant on 9 September 2006. 2. The applicant was promoted to the rank of CPT on 1 April 2010. 3. On 27 March 2013, an IO was appointed to conduct an informal investigation into the allegations of impropriety pertaining to the applicant. Specifically, the IO was required to determine the facts and circumstances pertaining to the allegations that the applicant had a prohibited relationship with a USNR NCO; fraternized with the USNR NCO; had a financial relationship with the USNR NCO; and that he sent elicit pictures to the USNR NCO. 4. On 22 April 2013, the IO returned a call to the spouse of the USNR NCO. The spouse informed the IO that the USNR NCO was found dead in her apartment; it appeared to be a suicide by drinking Clorox bleach. 5. On 20 June 2013, the IO rendered the results of the investigation into the four allegations of misconduct by the applicant. The IO stated: a. The allegations against the applicant of prohibited relationship and fraternization were substantiated. The applicant had a prohibited relationship with a USNR NCO in violation of AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14. The applicant carried on an intimate relationship with an enlisted sailor. They appeared posing in photographs together while in uniform. This creates a logical inference that the applicant knew the USNR NCO was enlisted. Given the nature of their attendance at social gatherings, plans to marry, and joint finances, the applicant was dealing with the USNR NCO on terms of military equality. This type of relationship is destructive to good order and discipline, brings discredit upon the armed forces, and had devastating effects on the well-being and family of the USNR NCO. b. The allegation of prohibited financial relationship was substantiated. The applicant had a prohibited financial relationship with a USNR NCO in violation of AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14. The applicant maintained and contributed to a joint checking account with the USNR NCO, helped her buy a new car, and paid for a hotel room. This was an on-going financial relationship. None of these transactions had any basis in duty assignments or professional interaction. All of these transactions were in furtherance of their inappropriate officer-enlisted relationship. c. The allegation of sending illicit photographs was substantiated. The applicant sent three pictures of his genitals to the USNR NCO, a subordinate service member. These pictures were pornographic in nature and were transmitted for sexual purposes. This behavior compromised the applicant's standing as an officer. In taking these sexually explicit photos of himself and sending them to an enlisted service member, the applicant set a poor example for others and displayed a lack of morals. d. The IO recommended the Report of Investigation (ROI) be forwarded to the Commander, 8th Theater Support Command for appropriate action against the applicant. He also recommended appropriate counseling for the surviving family members of the USNR NCO due to the emotional trauma potentially inflicted by the actions of the applicant and the recent suicide of the USNR NCO. 6. On 9 July 2013, a legal review was conducted on the AR 15-6 investigation and determined that the investigation substantially complies with the legal requirements, there were no procedural error or irregularities that invalidate the investigation, sufficient evidence supports the IO's findings, and the IO findings were consistent with his recommendation. 7. On an unknown date, the battalion commander reviewed the ROI and the legal review. He approved the ROI regarding allegations of impropriety attributed to the applicant. He approved the recommendations to take appropriate disciplinary action against the applicant and to close the investigation. 8. The applicant received a GOMOR for misconduct on 25 October 2013. a. The imposing authority stated he reviewed the results of the AR 15-6 investigation into the allegations of a prohibited relationship and fraternizing with an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve, which commenced while she was on active duty. He said the IO specifically concluded that the applicant knew the woman was an enlisted service member and the relationship was prohibited. The investigation also revealed that the applicant sent obscene photos to and engaged in an improper financial relationship with this woman openly. b. The imposing authority said as an officer in the U.S. Army, the applicant was required to adhere to the high standards expected of a member of their profession. Rather than meeting those standards, he chose to violate the law, Army regulations, and trust of his office by engaging in a prohibited relationship with an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve. His misconduct indicates he lacks self-control, personal responsibility, and good judgment expected of an officer. The imposing authority stated that he had serious reservations regarding the applicant's continued service in the U.S. Army. 9. On 3 November 2013, the applicant responded to the GOMOR. He asserts that while certain acts upon which the allegation were based did occur, the specifics as to his intent or actual knowledge of the USNR NCO's status were not accurate. He states when he first met the USNR NCO, who later became his fiancée, she told him she was divorced and getting out of the Navy because she did not make chief (E-7). He adds when he first met the USNR NCO he thought God was showing him his future wife. All he had to do was wait for her deployment to end. During their deployment, they expressed an emotional connection to each other but never any physical intimate contact. a. After his deployment, they continued to communicate as friends. She was a schoolteacher in New York and he was accepted to teach by three departments at West Point. He said he knew he could not maintain a relationship with an NCO, but not wanting to lose her, he decided to maintain contact until she redeployed, got out of the Reserve, and they could determine if their connection still existed. He felt this would not violate the principles of the Army's fraternization policy. b. He states he continued the communication as friends and tried only to focus on her well-being. He never intentionally meant to cause harm or disrespect to the Army or his status as an officer. After her return, they confirmed their emotional connection and fell in love. In November 2013, he proposed to her and she accepted. The marriage was scheduled for June 2014. He states he had plans to continue his military service with her by his side. He reiterates that he believed she was single and had exited the military. He states he lost his future wife and regrets that she did not disclose the truth about her status as a wife and a sailor. c. He continues by citing his contribution to the Army. He pled for the GOMOR to be filed locally due to the unique circumstances, career job performance, acknowledgement, understanding, and emotional hardship felt on both families. He maintains that his contributions to the Army are still unfinished. He adds that he learned an important lesson and he is now a better and wiser leader. 10. The applicant submitted two sworn statements and five supporting statements with his response to the GOMOR. In the sworn statements submitted by a 1LT and a CPT, the authors stated when they first met the USNR NCO, as far as they knew she was a schoolteacher who lived in New York. A fellow CPT and four senior officers he worked for and/or observed him during his daily duties expound on the applicant's accomplishments and selfless service in their statements. These officers recommend the GOMOR be filed locally as not to affect the applicant's future in the Army. 11. On 3 January 2014, the imposing authority stated he carefully reviewed the case file, the GOMOR, and matters in rebuttal submitted by the applicant. He directed the reprimand be filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (currently known as his OMPF). 12. On 19 June 2014, the Director, Officer Personnel Management Directorate, HRC, notified the applicant that based on the Army restructuring into a smaller force, several of their most experienced and professional officers would be required to separate early, and that he was selected for involuntary separation under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 638a. 13. On 13 August 2014, he appealed to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board to have the GOMOR removed from his OMPF. The request to remove the GOMOR was denied on 8 January 2015 on the basis that he failed to provide evidence to show the GOMOR was untrue or unjust or any new evidence for the board to consider that substantially negated the proceedings of the AR 15-6 investigation and subsequent administrative action. 14. On 23 November 2014, he requested a voluntary retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA). On 8 January 2015, the Chief Retirements Service Officer, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, HI recommended approval. 15. On 30 December 2014, the DAIG conducted a thorough review of the case in which the applicant was named as the subject. After a thorough review, the IG directed the allegations be amended in the IGAR because they were multiplicitous. The results are as follows: a. The allegation that the applicant had a prohibited intimate relationship with a married female USNR NCO in violation of AR 600-20, was originally substantiated; however the allegation has been removed from the IGAR database. b. The allegation that the applicant had a prohibited financial relationship with a female USNR NCO in violation of AR 600-20 and Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was originally substantiated; however the allegation has been removed from the IGAR database. c. The allegation that the applicant sent illicit photographs to a female USNR NCO in violations of Article 133, was originally substantiated; however the allegation has been removed from the IGAR database. d. The allegation that the applicant fraternized with a female USNR NCO in violation of AR 600-20, was substantiated and remains as substantiated. 16. Directorate of Human Resources, U.S. Army Garrison, HI, Orders 027-005, dated 27 January 2015, reassigned the applicant for separation processing with a retirement date of 31 March 2015. In reference to the entry concerning his retired grade/date of rank, the orders state "SEE REMARKS" which states that his final grade determination is subject to the outcome of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB). 17. On 9 February 2015, the applicant was notified that his request for retirement, OMPF to include the GOMOR, and ORB would be forwarded to the AGDRB. The AGDRB was to recommend the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily for retirement purposes to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, who will make a final determination. The applicant was advised he could not appear before the AGDRB, but he could submit any written material he wished the board to consider. 18. On 10 March 2015, the applicant submitted his written statement to the AGDRB. He stated that the IG reviewed the GOMOR and had all items removed from the record except one. He also said in his written statement, he submitted statements from fellow officers that believed the USNR NCO was divorced and out of the Navy. Additionally, he said his chain of command wrote statements on his behalf requesting that the GOMOR not be issued because of the circumstances behind his decision. He reiterated his accomplishments and requested the board consider all the evidence. He added he was successful in his duties and performance as a CPT and asked that he be retired as such. 19. On 30 March 2015, the AGDRB reviewed the voluntary retirement submitted by the applicant. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) stated if the applicant's retirement were approved, she directed his placement on the Retired List in the grade of 1LT/ O-2E. With regard to the calculation of his retired pay, she determined his service in the grade of CPT/O-3E was not satisfactory. 20. His DD Form 214 shows he was honorably retired on 31 March 2015 in the grade of CPT/O-3. The narrative reason for separation is listed as "Voluntary Early Retirement" under the provisions of AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), chapter 6. 21. U.S. Army Garrison, HI, Orders 090-0006, dated 31 March 2015 amended Orders 027-005, dated 27 January 2015, to show his retired grade/date of rank as 1LT/8 September 2008. 22. On 6 October 2015, the applicant was administered a polygraph test to examine his truthfulness in whether the USNR NCO told him she was divorced prior to entering into a relationship with him and upon the termination of their deployment in Afghanistan. The examiner stated that the applicant, a divorcee, and at the time an officer on active duty in the U.S. Army, stationed in Hawaii was accused of engaging in an improper relationship with a person who was married at the time of the relationship. The applicant asserted that he was told by the USNR NCO that she was divorced prior to the initiation of the relationship. The examiner opined that there was "no deception indicated" on the questions asked. The applicant was asked and answered the following two questions: * Are you lying about that woman telling you she was divorced prior to the start of that relationship? No * Are you lying about that woman telling you she was divorced before you started that relationship with her? No REFERENCES: 1. AR 15-6 establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive. Paragraph 1-9c states, except as provided in paragraph 1-9d, when adverse administrative action is contemplated against an individual including an individual designated as a respondent, based upon information obtained as a result of an investigation or board conducted pursuant to this regulation, the appropriate military authority must observe the following minimum safeguards before taking final action against the individual: a. Notify the person in writing of the proposed adverse action and provide a copy, if not previously provided, of that part of the findings and recommendations of the investigation or board and the supporting evidence on which the proposed adverse action is based. b Give the person a reasonable opportunity to reply in writing and to submit relevant rebuttal material. c. Review and evaluate the person's response. 2. AR 600-20, in effect at the time, prescribes the policies and responsibilities of command, which include the well-being of the force, military discipline, and conduct, the Army Equal Opportunity Program, and the Army Sexual Assault Victim Program. a. Paragraph 4-14b states that Relationships between Soldiers of different rank are prohibited if they: * Compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command * Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness * Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of grade or position for personal gain * Are, or are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature * Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission b. Paragraph 4-14c states that certain types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted Soldiers, or NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers, are prohibited. Prohibited relationships include the following: * Ongoing business relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, or NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers * borrowing or lending money, commercial solicitation, and any other type of ongoing financial or business relationship * Dating, shared living accommodations other than those directed by operational requirements, and intimate or sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel, or NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers c. All military personnel share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships. However, in any relationship between Soldiers of different grade or rank, the senior member is generally in the best position to terminate or limit the extent of the relationship. Nevertheless, all members may be held accountable for relationships that violate this policy. d. Commanders should seek to prevent inappropriate or unprofessional relationships through proper training and personal leadership. Commanders have a wide range of responses available should inappropriate relationships occur. These responses may include counseling, reprimand, order to cease, reassignment, or adverse action. Potential adverse action may include official reprimand, adverse evaluation report(s), nonjudicial punishment, separation, bar to reenlistment, promotion denial, demotion, and courts martial. Commanders must carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in reaching a disposition that is warranted, appropriate, and fair. 3. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) establishes procedures, in pertinent part, for the authorize placement of unfavorable information about an Army member in the individuals OMPF and to ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in the individuals OMPF. a. An administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. b. The unfavorable information is of such a serious nature as to apparently warrant, unless adequately explained or rebutted, filing in a recipient's AMHRR. In such cases, a notification letter will be sent to the recipient, in which his or her rights are explained. The letter will include the unfavorable information proposed for filing in the AMHRR. The recipient must be given a chance to review the evidence against him or her and to submit a written rebuttal or explanation for the board's consideration before any adverse finding or recommendation is made. c. Paragraph 7-2 states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an object decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 638a, provides that regular officers on the active-duty list may be considered for early retirement by a selection board in the case of officers, in pertinent part, holding a regular grade below the grade of colonel, or who after two additional years or less of active service would be eligible for retirement and whose names are not on a list of officers recommended for promotion. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's council requests removal of a GOMOR from the applicant's OMPF. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR on 25 October 2013 for engaging in a prohibited relationship and fraternization with a USNR NCO that commenced while she was on active duty. The ROI substantiated that the applicant carried on an intimate relationship with the NCO and they appeared posing in photographs together while in uniform. They also attended social gatherings, made plans to marry, and had joint finances. Additionally, he sent three pictures of his genitals to the NCO. 3. On 3 November 2013, he was given the opportunity to refute the information contained in the GOMOR and/or make a statement on his behalf. In his statement, he said that although he knew he could not maintain a relationship with a USNR NCO, he did not want to lose her and he decided to maintain contact until she redeployed and got out of the Reserve. During their deployment, they expressed an emotional connection to each other, but there was never any physical intimate contact. 4. On 30 December 2014, the DAIG conducted a thorough review of the case and directed the allegations of the applicant had a prohibited intimate relationship with a married female USNR NCO and a prohibited financial relationship with a female USNR NCO be amended and removed from the IGAR database. The amendments to the IGAR database were based on the fact that the allegations were multiplicitous. However, the allegation that the applicant fraternized with a female USNR NCO in violation of AR 600-20, was substantiated and remained substantiated. 5. The evidence of record shows the GOMOR was rendered for engaging in a prohibited relationship and fraternization with a USNR NCO, allegations substantiated by the AR 15-6 investigation and the DAIG. There is no evidence of record and neither the applicant nor counsel provided any evidence to refute the information contained in the GOMOR. 6. The evidence of record further shows on 19 June 2014, he was selected for involuntary separation. However, on 23 November 2014, he requested a voluntary retirement under TERA. His orders state that his final grade determination is subject to the outcome of the AGDRB. 7. On 9 February 2015, the applicant was notified that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) would make a final determination on the highest grade he served satisfactorily for retirement purposes. He elected to submit his written statement in which he relayed the results of the DAIG review of his case, provided support statements from his chain of command, and reiterated his accomplishments. The AGDRB and the Deputy Assistant Secretary reviewed the information provided, determined that his service in the grade of CPT/O-3 was unsatisfactory, and directed his placement on the Retired List in the grade of 1LT/O-2E. 8. There is no evidence neither and he nor counsel have provided any evidence to substantiate his claim or show his selection for involuntary retirement and subsequent reduction in grade was in error or unjust. 9. After a comprehensive review of the evidence presented and the contentions and arguments of the applicant and his counsel, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the applicant was not afforded his due process during the AR 15-6 investigation or that the findings were in error or unjust. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013839 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013839 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2