IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016189 BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ ___x___ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016189 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by recommending to the Secretary of the Army that he restore the applicant's grade to Brigadier General (BG)/O-7 and place him on the retired list in the rank/grade of BG/O-7 effective 1 May 2015. _____________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: 10 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016189 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests restoration of his rank/grade of brigadier general (BG)/O-7 and placement on the retired list in that grade. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. 2. The applicant states a mistake was made leading to a determination, contrary to law, to reduce him to colonel (COL)/O-6 in the absence of substantial evidence that he suffered from service-related medical conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) during his service as a BG. a. In light of the new and substantial evidence, he wants the Board to recommend to the Secretary of the Army (SA) that he be restored, in retirement, to the rank of BG. The error and injustice he seeks corrected was a determination to reduce him to COL, absent new and substantial evidence that he suffered from combat-related medical conditions, including PTSD and TBI, during his service as a BG. Regulations provide that pertinent to whether service in grade was satisfactory are medical reasons which may have contributed to alleged misconduct. The Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) recommended that he be reduced to O-6 without benefit of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) findings regarding PTSD and TBI. He is 100 percent disabled from injuries and illnesses he suffered while on active duty and suffered from these conditions during his service as a BG. b. While leading Special Operations Command South (SOCSOUTH), he drank alcohol – specifically including vodka and cranberry juice cocktails – and was alleged to have been publicly intoxicated three times in 2013 to 2014. An Inspector General (IG) investigation determined only one of the allegations had foundation. The substantiated allegation, as he understood it, involved his off-duty verbal dispute with a man at a golf club bar. Nothing was damaged, no one was injured, and no police were involved. In August 2014, he was relieved of command of SOCSOUTH. In November 2014, he was reduced to the grade of COL for retirement. c. In September 2015, the VA adjudged him fully disabled on the basis of a number of service-related illnesses and injuries. Among them were PTSD at 70 percent for symptoms including deficiencies in judgment and TBI at 40 percent for impairment of executive functions and insomnia. Common and related symptoms of both PTSD and TBI include being tired, trouble sleeping, and poor judgment. Separately, in December 2013, he underwent heart valve replacement surgery and was placed on a blood thinner, Warfarin. He now knows that both alcohol and cranberry juice react badly with Warfarin, and that heart disease, for which he received a 60 percent disability, has side effects including fatigue. The incidents leading to understandable allegations of public intoxication resulted from his injudicious use of alcohol in social settings; fatigue related to his PTSD, TBI and heart disease; and possibly an adverse reaction to Warfarin as well. His combat-related disabilities do not excuse his poor judgment in consuming too much alcohol after hours on at least one occasion. He believes his medical conditions do, however, help explain and mitigate his misconduct. The AGDRB was not aware of the subsequent VA determination of his disability when it recommended his demotion. d. Also pertinent to whether service was satisfactory are an officer's evaluation reports and awards received in grade and whether reporting officials were aware of the misconduct considered by the AGDRB. Service may be unsatisfactory owing to misconduct; however, the necessity of retirement does not preclude retirement in the highest grade served. He served for almost thirty-one years as an Infantry and Special Forces officer, earning five battle stars for forty-eight months of combat service in Afghanistan and Iraq, and performing hazardous service in Latin America. As a general officer (GO), he received three Defense Superior Service Medals and similar decorations from the Colombian and German militaries. He was humbled to receive strong evaluations from four-star officers for his service as a BG. He quotes them only because the character of his service in grade was put into question. Generals DMR, CMS, and JFK, and Admiral WHM all found his service as a BG to be at least satisfactory. Admiral WHM and General JFK, his leaders during the misconduct in question, also submitted letters to this Board opposing his reduction in grade. (1) General DMR cited his "brilliant leadership and outstanding performance" as a war fighter and counterinsurgency expert leading special operations forces. (2) General CMS described him as "absolutely superb" and "extraordinary…in every way," placed him in the top quarter of brigadiers he evaluated, and credited him for achieving an unmatched "level of sustained security and governance" due to his "incredible" leadership. (3) General JFK referred to his "outstanding performance" and stated that he did a "superior job" and was an "invaluable, focused and capable" subordinate. (4) Admiral WHM described him as "a superior General Officer," the first of four he rated, and ''exactly the kind of senior leader and commander we envision developing and leading Special Warfare activities" and concluded that he "epitomize[d] today's SOF General Officer," as he offered him "invaluable advice and assistance," and "performed superbly each and every time." e. He takes full responsibility for his incident of public intoxication. Looking at his behavior as a whole during that period, he realizes now that he made a mistake and his medical retirement was appropriate. While he wishes his long Army career had ended differently, he does not fault the service for his retirement. Nonetheless, given his long and decorated service, multiple combat tours, and the significant way in which undiagnosed medical disabilities affected his behavior and judgment, he believes it is appropriate to restore his full rank in retirement. He remains truly sorry for the embarrassment and trouble he caused his commanders, and especially his subordinates. He knows that he is not entitled to retire as an O-7. He hopes the Board may graciously consider the new evidence regarding some medical reasons for his misconduct, and in light of these newly-developed facts, generously reconsider the total record of his performance in grade within this context. 3. The applicant provides: * Army Regulation (AR) 15-80 (AGDRB and Grade Determination) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * VA rating decision, dated 22 September 2015 * VA information about TBI and PTSD * Mayo Clinic article about Warfarin's side effects * Letters of support from General JFK and Admiral WHM * Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) for rating periods ending 15 April 2011, 1 October 2011, 1 October 2012, and 29 June 2013 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was appointed as a Regular Army commissioned officer and entered active duty on 12 April 1985. He served as an Infantry and Special Forces officer in a variety of assignments, including assignments in Colombia, Ecuador, Bosnia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan (multiple times), and Africa. He was promoted to COL on 1 October 2006 and to BG on 2 November 2011. 3. His most recent assignments included: * July 2007 to December 2007, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (Forward), Bogota, Colombia * December 2007 to May 2009, Commander, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC * May 2009 to April 2010, Executive Officer to the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, FL * April 2010 to October 2011, Deputy Commander, Regional Command North, International Security Assistance Force, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Afghanistan * November 2011 to September 2012, Deputy Director of Operations, J-3, U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, FL * October 2012 to August 2014, Commander, SOCSOUTH, Homestead Air Force Base, FL * August 2014 to May 2015, Special Assistant to the Deputy Commander, U.S. Southern Command, Doral, FL 4. On 22 November 2011, the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) received notification from the DOD IG that the Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), intended to appoint an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers) investigating officer (IO) to investigate allegations that the applicant improperly authorized the stockpiling of humanitarian assistance supplies and materials in excess of 29 days. A USFOR-A publication prohibited such action. The investigation found: a. The allegation that the applicant improperly allowed contract workers to eat in a U.S. dining facility at no charge, in violation of DOD 7000.14-R, DOD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 12,Special Accounts, Funds, and Programs, Chapter 19, Food Service Program, dated May 2011, was substantiated. b. The allegation that the applicant improperly authorized the stockpiling of humanitarian assistance items in excess of 29 days, in violation of USFOR-A Publication 1-06, Money as a Weapon System-Afghanistan (MAAWS-A), Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), dated February 2011, was not substantiated. 5. On 19 May 2014, the DAIG received notification from the DOD IG that it had authorized the U.S. Special Operations Command to conduct an AR 15-6 investigation into allegations of impropriety against the applicant. The IO found and the AR 15-6 recommended: a. The allegation that the applicant on two occasions drank to the extent that he appeared intoxicated in a public place, causing embarrassment to the organization – behavior which could be characterized as a violation of the UCMJ, Article 133, "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman," and AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy) – was substantiated. b. The allegation that the applicant failed to exercise restraint and was intoxicated in Lima, Peru, in May 2013, in violation of U.S. Southern Command General Order Number One was substantiated. c. The allegation that the applicant left a social gathering in an apparent intoxicated state and insisted on driving even though others advised against it, in a manner that was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces – behavior which could be characterized as a violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, General Article," and AR 600-20 – was not substantiated. d. The allegation that the applicant engaged in a physical altercation with the Command Sergeant Major, in a manner that was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces – behavior which could be characterized as a violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, and AR 600-20 – was not substantiated. 6. The AR 15-6 investigation found that on three occasions, the applicant, while in command of Special Operations Command–South (SOCSOUTH), was intoxicated and engaged in behavior that caused embarrassment to the command and constituted misconduct. In addition to reprimanding the applicant, the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command directed the applicant's removal from command. 7. On 17 July 2014, he was reprimanded by Admiral WHM, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command. The General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) stated: a. He was reprimanded for the following incidents: On or about May 2013, he failed to exercise restraint in the consumption of alcohol while in Lima, Peru, in violation of U.S. Southern Command General Order Number 1, dated 28 May 2012. In the spring of 2014, while at a golf course bar in Homestead, FL, he consumed alcohol and engaged in an argument with a civilian that culminated in physical contact in front of civilians and enlisted personnel. On or about 3 May 2014, while at a golf course bar in Homestead, he consumed alcohol and engaged in a verbal altercation with three civilian females that required others to intervene. b. His conduct was unacceptable for a GO. It demonstrated a failure of personal and professional judgment and embarrassed the command. As a senior leader, he set the standard for others to follow. It was his responsibility to create and maintain an environment conducive to discipline and respect. The reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. 8. On 27 July 2014, he acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected not to present a rebuttal or any other matters on his behalf. He indicated he would have a discussion with the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command. 9. On 11 August 2014, the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, reviewed the investigation and considered any matters presented by the applicant. He ordered the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF). 10. On 14 August 2014, by memorandum to the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, stated that he took these administrative disciplinary actions to ensure accountability and adherence to standards across the command. At the same time, he recognized the tremendous service and sacrifice the applicant had provided over his career to the U.S. Army and the Joint Force, including command of SOCSOUTH, multiple tours in combat, and numerous other highly stressful duty positions. He would not allow the incidents to go unpunished, but it was important to balance this with the needs of the individual. He had also directed steps in order to support continued participation by the applicant in appropriate behavioral counseling, including relating to alcohol use. Ultimately, he believed this GOMOR and removal from command should allow him to retire as a BG considering the record of selfless service the applicant provided. 11. On 22 October 2014, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement to be effective 1 May 2015. Following the GOMOR and the request for retirement, the SA directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA)) to convene the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) to recommend the highest grade in which the applicant served satisfactorily for the purpose of retirement. 12. On 5 November 2014, following the notification, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the AGDRB wherein he requested the board determine that he served satisfactorily in the grade of BG, and further recommend to the SA that he be permitted to retire in that grade BG. He stated: a. He always said "Yes" to any mission, anytime and anyplace. He sacrificed his family and his health for the U.S. Army for over 30 years of service in Special Operations. He lost his family (divorced in 2011), health (fused spine in 2011 and open-heart surgery in 2013), and with the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) investigation, he had reached a culmination point. He accepted full responsibility for his actions, good or bad. b. This DAIG investigation and the perceptions that were out there caused him to do some serious introspection of himself as a person and as a leader. First, he learned that alcohol and he do not mix. With heart-surgery and now taking blood thinners for the rest of his life, his body chemistry had changed and made him more susceptible to inebriation. Therefore, he decided he did not need alcohol. He also received counseling/help when he entered a program in Tampa on 17 November. c. He felt he had served our country and the U.S. Army very well over the last 30-plus years. He had taken care of and led all types of servicemen and women in very trying situations and unpleasant environments. 13. On 2 December 2014, the applicant was notified that his request for retirement and supporting service records would be forwarded to the AGDRB under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-80. The AGDRB would recommend the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily for retirement purposes to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards), who would make a final determination. 14. The AGDRB reviewed the applicant’s case. In addition to the documents noted above, the AGDRB viewed a medical document titled "Discharge Summary," dated 5 December 2014. This document shows the applicant's medical diagnoses, including PTSD and TBI, and listed his multiple deployments and foreign service. 15. The AGDRB unanimously recommended the applicant’s retirement in the grade of COL and placement on the retired list in that grade on the basis of their conclusion that he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of BG but did serve satisfactorily in the grade of COL. The SA approved the AGDRB's recommendation and ordered the applicant retired in the grade of COL. 16. On 21 January 2015, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command published Orders 021-01 releasing him from active duty effective 30 April 2015 and placing him on the retired list effective 1 May 2015 in his retired grade of COL with a date of rank of 1 October 2006. 17. The applicant retired from the Army on 30 April 2015 and he was placed on the Retired List in the retired rank/grade of COL/O-6. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 30 years and 19 days of total active service. Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) shows "BG," item 4b (Pay Grade) shows "O07," and item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) shows "2011-11-02." Additionally, item 18 (Remarks) shows the entry "Retired List Grade Colonel." He was awarded or authorized, in part: * Defense Superior Service Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC)) * Legion of Merit (2nd OLC) * Bronze Star Medal * Defense Meritorious Service Medal (2nd OLC) * Meritorious Service Medal (5th OLC) * Joint Service Commendation Medal * Army Commendation Medal (1st OLC) * Joint Service Achievement Medal * Army Achievement Medal * Combat Infantryman Badge * Expert Infantryman Badge * Master Parachutist Badge * Military Free Fall Parachutist Badge * Ranger Tab * Special Forces Tab 18. The applicant provides a statement from General JFK (Retired) who stated: a. He supports the applicant's request that the Board correct an error and remove an injustice by granting the applicant the retirement rank of BG. He led the United States Southern Command when the applicant commanded SOCSOUTH. As he stated in his OER, the applicant was an outstanding performer who did a superior job and was an invaluable, focused, and capable subordinate. As the combatant commander responsible for Latin America, he (the author) was aware of the incident in which the applicant was involved in an off-duty verbal argument with a civilian at a command social function. Both had apparently consumed a drink or two too many. There was no physical contact and there were no threats. There was not even a suggestion of any kind of harassment or assault. It was an argument between two adults. End of story. b. His original effort prior to the board's action was to ensure that the Army leadership knew the details of the issue in question. He felt so strongly that the applicant was wrongly sent to the AGDRB in the first place that he personally visited the Army Chief of Staff at that time in his office to put into context the single accusation that was still in play post legal action. He also wanted to help the Chief of Staff understand what a tremendous officer the applicant was and how effective he was as a commander. Had he believed it remotely possible that the AGDRB would actually recommend a reduced retirement grade he would also have spoken to the Secretary of the Army. c. He was shocked to learn that the applicant was retired as a COL after all his years of outstanding service. What none of them knew at the time, and what they only learned when he was going through the medical retirement process, was how badly the applicant was hurt in the war. His belief that the applicant was unjustly retired at reduced rank is strengthened by the knowledge, which all of them lacked at the time he went before the AGDRB, that the applicant suffered from an undiagnosed, 100 percent disabling combat-related PTSD and TBI during his service as a BG. In the strongest terms, he implores the Board right this wrong and recommend to the SA that the applicant be retired in the grade of BG. He would also appreciate the opportunity to speak personally with the Board. 19. The applicant also provides a statement of support from Admiral WLM (Retired) who states: a. He supports the applicant's request that this Board correct an error and remove an injustice by recommending that he be restored to the retirement grade of BG. He led the U.S. Special Operations Command when the applicant led SOCSOUTH. As he stated on his OER, he was a superior general officer, the best of four officers in that grade he rated at that time. He offered invaluable advice and assistance and performed superbly. b. As the combatant commander responsible for all special operations, he was aware of the off-duty incident in which the applicant became inebriated in public. For the applicant's sake, as well as the command's, it was necessary to move him. However, it was never his intent to demote him. In fact, he was unaware that the applicant had been demoted to the rank of COL. c. He supports the applicant maintaining the grade of BG in retirement, especially as he has learned since the applicant went before the AGDRB, he suffered from undiagnosed, one-hundred percent disabling, combat-related PTSD and TBI during his service as a brigadier. It is also worth looking at the applicant's incredible service in a combat zone. He worked with the applicant during his time in Afghanistan and the applicant was superb. He has never seen an officer confronted with such operational challenges, work so hard, and be so successful in leading our young Soldiers. He knows from experience that these were trying times. The applicant saved countless American and Afghan lives through his daily tactical decisions, his personal front-line leadership, and his compassion for his fellow warriors. These actions, by themselves, are worthy of the Board's attention and support for restoring his rank of BG. d. He asks the Board to recommend to the current SA that the applicant be restored to the retirement rank of BG, given the good character of his service in that grade. He (the author) would appreciate the opportunity to speak personally with the Board. 20. The applicant provides his VA rating decision, information about TBI and PTSD, and an article from the Mayo Clinic about Warfarin's side effects. The article about Warfarin's side effects notes that the risk of bleeding may increase when taken with alcohol and/or cranberry juice. The article does not identify any risk of increased intoxicating effects of alcohol when taking Warfarin. 21. The Board forwarded his medical records to the Army Review Boards Agency psychiatrist to review his case. The psychiatrist rendered an advisory opinion and stated: a. The applicant served on active duty from 12 April 1985 to 30 April 2015 at which time he retired honorably in the rank of COL in accordance with paragraph 6-13d of AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), as per the AGDRB recommendation. The AGDRB recommended reducing the applicant from the rank of BG to COL based on a GOMOR, dated 17 June 2014, in which the applicant was reprimanded for excessive consumption of alcohol and for engaging in verbal altercations with civilians while intoxicated. He is now applying to the ABCMR, requesting that he be restored to his previous rank given the fact he has been found by the VA to be 70 percent service connected for PTSD and 40 percent service connected for TBI, effective 1 May 2015. b. The Army Review Boards Agency psychiatrist was asked to review the case and determine if the applicant suffered from PTSD or any other behavioral health condition at the time of his retirement from the Army. Documentation reviewed includes the applicant’s ABCMR application, his VA disability award letter, several letters of recommendation, and the military electronic medical record (AHLTA). c. Review of the military medical record indicates that the applicant has been treated for insomnia since 27 April 2012. The military medical record also indicates that the applicant was referred to the James A. Haley VA Medical Center TBI Clinic on 30 September 2014 for TBI evaluation. There is no documentation of specific PTSD symptoms in his military medical record other than the aforementioned insomnia. As indicated above, the applicant has been found by the VA to be 70 percent service-connected for PTSD and 40 percent service-connected for TBI. PTSD is associated with the use of substances (including alcohol) to self-medicate symptoms. TBI is associated with impaired executive function (i.e., impaired decision making). PTSD and TBI in the presence of alcohol can be associated with impaired judgement leading to disinhibited and uncharacteristic behaviors. It appears that the AGDRB was not aware of the applicant’s post-service diagnoses of PTSD and TBI by the VA. The psychiatric reviewer recommends that this new information be referred to the ABCMR for further consideration. 22. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion and given an opportunity to provide comments. He concurred. REFERENCES: 1. AR 15-6 establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive. This regulation or any part of it may be made applicable to investigations or boards that are authorized by another directive, but only by specific provision in that directive or in the memorandum of appointment. a. Paragraph 1-7 (Allegations against senior officials) states, generally, only the SA, Under SA, Chief of Staff of the Army, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and The Inspector General of the Army may authorize or direct an investigation into allegations or incidents of improprieties or misconduct by general officers, promotable colonels, members of the civilian Senior Executive Service, and other DA civilian employees of comparable grade or position. b. Paragraph 2-1 states investigating officers and board members shall be those persons who, in the opinion of the appointing authority, are best qualified for the duty by reason of their education, training, experience, length of service and temperament. 2. AR 15-80 governs the actions and composition of the AGDRB. The AGDRB determines or recommends the highest grade satisfactorily held for service, physical disability retirement, retirement pay, and separation for physical disability. a. Paragraph 1-5 states the SA retains the prerogative to accomplish discretionary grade determinations without referral to the AGDRB. The SA retains sole authority to make discretionary grade determinations in cases involving general officers. b. Paragraph 2-2 states the AGDRB considers individual cases that are referred to it in accordance with this regulation. It directs or recommends the final grade determination that affects an individual’s separation or retired pay. The AGDRB decides cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. AGDRB discussions and individual votes of members are privileged and confidential and will be disclosed only to those individuals in the decision-making process with a need to know. c. Paragraph 2-4 states a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive. The AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits. Generally, determination will be based on the Soldier’s overall service in the grade in question, either on active duty or other service qualifying the Soldier for service/physical disability retirement, receipt of retired pay, or separation for physical disability. Circumstances pertinent to whether such service is found satisfactory include, but are not limited to, the following: medical reasons, which may have been a contributing or decisive factor in a reduction in grade, misconduct, or substandard performance; compassionate circumstances; length of service; performance level; nature and severity of misconduct, if any; and the grade at which the misconduct was committed. d. Paragraph 2-5 (3) states service in the highest grade or an intermediate grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when there is sufficient unfavorable information to establish that the Soldier’s service in the grade in question was unsatisfactory. One specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade. However, service retirement in lieu of or as the result of elimination action will not, by itself, preclude retirement in the highest grade. e. Paragraphs 2-9 and 2-10 state final determinations of grade rest exclusively with the SA and the Secretary’s designees. No one will enter into any agreement that will in any way limit the exercise of that discretion. If a Soldier, retiree, or other former soldier believes an error or injustice has occurred with respect to his or her grade determination, the individual can apply to the ABCMR. 3. AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files. It ensures that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files, and ensures that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Paragraph 3-2 states that unfavorable information will not be filed in an official personnel file unless the recipient has been given the chance to review the documentation that serves as the basis for the proposed filing and make a written statement, or to decline, in writing, to make such a statement. This statement may include evidence that rebuts, explains, or mitigates the unfavorable information. The issuing authority should fully affirm and document unfavorable information to be considered for inclusion in official personnel files. Unfavorable information filed in official personnel files must meet Privacy Act standards of accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness. Unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity. b. 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 objective decision by competent authority. The burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 4. AR 600-8-24 provides policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. Chapter 6 (Retirements), paragraph 6-13d, states a Regular Army commissioned officer with 30 years of service may, upon their request and the approval of the Secretary of the Army, be retired (Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3918). 5. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. An AR 15-6 investigation substantiated a finding that, on three occasions, the applicant, while holding the grade of BG and in command of SOCSOUTH, was intoxicated and engaged in behavior that caused embarrassment to the command and constituted misconduct. As a result, his commander relieved him from command and reprimanded him. 3. The imposing commander considered the facts and circumstances of his case as well as the applicant's response and ordered the GOMOR filed in the performance folder of his OMPF. As a result of this unfavorable information, upon his application for retirement his record went before an AGDRB to determine the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served. 4. A panel of GOs senior to the applicant found that the applicant's service in the grade of BG was unsatisfactory. The SA accepted the recommendation and ordered the applicant placed on the retired list in the grade of COL. 5. The evidence indicates that, while the AGDRB was aware of the applicant's various diagnoses, it did not have the VA rating decision and associated information available for review. The Army Review Boards Agency psychiatrist states that PTSD is associated with the use of substances such as alcohol to self-medicate symptoms and further notes that TBI is associated with impaired executive function (i.e., impaired decision making). The psychiatrist recommends that this Board consider that information. It does not appear that Warfarin would have been a factor in his alcohol-related behavior. 6. The evidence suggests that PTSD, TBI, and possibly other medical conditions may have been mitigating factors in the conduct that led to the applicant being reprimanded and removed from command, which in turn led to the decision that his retired rank would be COL. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016189 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016189 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2