IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006540 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: 30 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006540 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: 30 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006540 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 the removal of his General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and all allied documents from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), retroactive promotion to captain (CPT), and any other relief the Board deems just and proper. 2. The applicant states the claims and assertions contained in the GOMOR are inaccurate. He defers further statements to counsel. 3. The applicant provides evidence through counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests the removal of the applicant's GOMOR and all allied documents from his OMPF, the applicant's reinstatement on active duty and retroactive promotion to CPT, and any other relief the Board deems just and proper. 2. Counsel states: a. On 19 July 2012, the applicant received a GOMOR for being arrested for driving while impaired (DWI). At the time, his case was still pending in the North Carolina courts. The applicant's attorneys believed that at trial, he would likely be found not guilty. Accordingly, the applicant, through his attorney, asked that the filing determination be withheld pending the outcome of the civilian case. Brigadier General Cxxx declined this request and directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. This generated a separation action by the U.S. Army. Although he had been a Soldier for over 17 years at the time of his separation, he was not entitled to an administrative board because he was still a probationary officer. b. On 15 February 2013, the criminal charges against the applicant were dismissed in open court during the presentation of the State's evidence. As expected, the State possessed no evidence that the applicant was driving his vehicle. c. On 9 October 2013, the Chief District Court Judge ordered that "any and all entries relating to the petitioner's apprehension, charge, trial or conviction and any civil revocation of his/her driver license resulting from the criminal charge shall be expunged from the records of the court, all law enforcement agencies, the Division of Adult Correction, the Division of Motor Vehicles, and any other State or local government agency." Accordingly, there is no longer any record of the applicant's arrest or criminal charge in North Carolina court or law enforcement agency records. d. Following this expungement, the applicant's chain of command attempted to abate his impending separation. Toward this end, his brigade commander, Colonel (COL) Cxxxxxxxxxx Sxxxxxxxx wrote: 1LT [Applicant] has the support of the entire chain of command. [The applicant] has proven his worth to this command and the Soldiers in his unit. I have no doubt [the applicant] would excel as a company commander. He is a professional with the zeal, determination, and acumen, vital to success and the future of our Army. [The applicant] is an asset who should be retained for the good of the service. e. His battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Gxxxxxx Wxxxxx added: 1LT [Applicant] is the consummate professional and a servant leader. He is a driven young man who possesses the qualities that commanders seek of all of their junior officers. ...[the applicant's] ability to overcome adversity many times over is a testament to his character. Many others would have folded to the sheer and overwhelming challenge which [the applicant] has recently endured. [The applicant] is clearly a winner and a fighter. He possesses qualities we need to instill in our Soldiers. He displays a courageous tenacity that is unequalled among his peers. f. 1LT Blancart's former battalion commander, LTC Cxxxx Wxxxxxx, also supported his retention by stating: I served as [the applicant's] senior rater for two years. In that time I observed him in a number of leadership environments, from airborne operations to tactical training. Simply put, he has a genuine care for Soldiers. He trains among them, develops them professionally, and involves himself in their Family care to ensure they are well-rounded, thoroughly ready individuals capable of deploying and doing their duty. He possesses great character and maturity; his performance is simply above that of his peers. g. CPT Jxxxx Gxxxxxxxx, Jxxx's company commander, echoed this sentiment and observed: [The applicant's] demeanor and attitude during this time is exemplary. He is an exceptional leader and officer who repeatedly demonstrated the will to win in the face of adversity ....1LT [Applicant]'s dedication to service, steadfast performance and winning attitude is inherent in our best leaders. He has demonstrated to me that he is a capable leader. I have no doubt [the applicant] would excel in anything he does. h. LTC (retired) Jxxx Hxxxxxx also wrote on behalf of 1LT [Applicant]. In his letter of support, he stated: 1LT [Applicant] is a gifted and dynamic leader that loves Soldiers and has a genuine concern for their welfare. On multiple occasions since he was commissioned, 1LT [Applicant] contacted me to discuss Soldier issues. In each instance, [his] desire to do the right thing for the Army, his unit, and his Soldiers was extremely apparent. His enthusiasm and excitement about being a servant leader in the Army is infectious and, in my opinion, far surpasses the level of dedication and commitment of the majority of his peer group. i. At the time of his separation, the applicant had in excess of 17 years of service to his country. He possessed a spotless record. He was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and he also served as a peacekeeper in Bosnia. He was a senior rated Jumpmaster and he volunteered and served as an Army Recruiter and Drill Sergeant. His Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) were all exceptional and consistent with the superlatives found in his letters of support. j. On his last OER, his rater, MAJ Sidney Byrne, said of him: LT [Applicant] is one of the strongest performing junior officers in the battalion and clearly has the potential for significantly increased responsibilities. [He] thrives in a high intensity and fluid environment where his quick thinking, superior communication skills and ability to anticipate propel him ahead of his peers. k. The applicant's record reveals no hint of alcohol problems. Moreover, there was no suggestion that his performance was marginal or that he was ever distracted by personal problems. On the contrary, there was every indication that he was a junior officer on the rise and there was every indication that he was soon be placed in command. l. The global state of affairs suggests that America's war on terrorism is far from over. Given these circumstances, it would seem wise to retain the Army's best and most experienced officers. The applicant possesses rare experience. He spent considerable time as an enlisted Soldier. He has deployed to Bosnia and Iraq. He has trained Soldiers as a Drill Sergeant and recruited young men and women to volunteer to serve their country. As a senior Jumpmaster, he routinely was responsible for the lives of paratroopers during airborne operations. There was every indication that this young officer, who was well regarded and well respected by his chain of command, would make an exceptional commander. m. Despite the emphasis on reducing the force, the applicant's chain of command unanimously fought for his retention. They recognized that this was not only unfair to him, but his retention was in the interest of the U.S. Army. Despite these efforts, he was separated from the Army less than three years from his retirement eligibility. n. It has been said that the pervasive zero-defect mentality is a cancer that is eating us all. I contend that the applicant has been a victim of this cancer. In the final analysis, he was separated from the Army because of a commander's obsessive preoccupation with the reduction of force and a slavish commitment to a zero defect mentality. o. The applicant was accused of driving while impaired and leaving the scene of an accident. As the reprimand acknowledges, a police officer confronted the applicant at his home "approximately forty-five minutes" after an alleged accident. This police officer never witnessed any accident and never witnessed the applicant driving. The applicant was observed with a strong odor of alcohol, red glassy eyes, slurred speech and unable to balance himself in his own living room. At trial, no witness testified that they saw him drive. No witness testified that they saw any accident. Moreover, no civil claim was ever filed against him for property damage. Considering this evidence, it is no wonder LTC Wxxxxxx observed, "At the time of the incident, the charges levied against 1LT [Applicant] were so devoid of credibility I was convinced the event did not happen, and this fact would be exposed in a court of law." He was right. During the trial, the Assistant District Attorney recognized that he had no evidence that the applicant was driving or that he was ever in an accident. Accordingly, he dismissed the charges against the applicant while the charging officer was still on the stand. p. Evidence matters – or it should. There is clear and convincing evidence the applicant is an excellent Soldier and junior officer. He maintained a spotless military record for over 17 years and he earned the steadfast support of his entire chain of command. Nevertheless, he was separated on the basis of an unsubstantiated criminal charge that was eventually dismissed and expunged. Under these circumstances his untimely separation constitutes a clear injustice and should be corrected. 3. Counsel provides: * printouts from Superior Court, Cumberland County, North Carolina, pertaining to the disposition of the charges in the subject incident * State of North Carolina, Cumberland County, Petition and Order of Expunction Under G.S. 15A-145(a) and G.S. 15A-146, signed by the Presiding Judge on 15 April 2013 * numerous other automated printouts pertaining to record searches * DA Forms 67-9 (OER), covering the rating periods 8 May 2009 through 14 April 2011; 14 April 2011 through 7 November 2011; and 8 November 2011 through 10 July 2012 * numerous letters of support from superiors, fellow officers, and peers * DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief), dated 3 August 2012 * numerous award certificates, citations, and DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award) * numerous diplomas, certificates of training, certificates of achievement, certificates of affiliation, and certificates of participation * several photographs of the applicant, alone and with other service members and citizens CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. On 8 May 2009, following prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), the applicant was appointed as a Regular Army officer. On 12 May 2009, he entered active duty and on 23 November 2010 he was promoted to 1LT. 3. On 30 October 2011, the applicant was arrested in Fayetteville, NC, for DWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. A police officer found him at his home, approximately 45 minutes after he allegedly fled the accident he caused. When he was arrested by the police officer, he emitted a strong odor of alcohol, had red glassy eyes, could not balance himself, and slurred his speech. Thereafter, he refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath to determine alcohol concentration. 4. The applicant was charged in Cumberland County, NC, with DWI, hit and run, failure to stop, and property damage. Additionally, the District Attorney sought the revocation of his civilian driving privileges for a period believed to be 30 days. 5. On 19 July 2012, the applicant was reprimanded by the Acting Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC, for DWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. The GOMOR stated the reprimand was being imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The imposing officer noted his intention to direct the filing of this document in the applicant's OMPF; however, he first referred the GOMOR to the applicant for information and acknowledgment of his rebuttal opportunity in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). 6. On 19 July 2012, the applicant was notified of his requirement to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraphs 4-2b(2), b(5), and b(8), due to his misconduct and moral or professional dereliction. The notifying officer, the Acting Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps, cited the applicant's receipt of a GOMOR as the specific reason for the initiation of elimination actions. 7. On 31 July 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of both the GOMOR and the proposed elimination action. He further acknowledged his intent to submit written matters for consideration within seven calendar days; however, he requested a seven day extension to submit written matters, until 13 August 2012, since he would not be able to receive legal assistance in a timely manner. 8. On 8 August 2012, the applicant's counsel submitted a request for an extension, until 31 August 2012, to respond to the applicant's GOMOR. 9. On 30 August 2012, the applicant's counsel rebutted the applicant's GOMOR and proposed elimination, wherein he stated: 1LT [Applicant] has served his country with honor and devotion for over 16 years. For 1LT [Applicant] military service was his calling in life. He enlisted in the United States Army. He served 13 years as an enlisted Soldier. In 2011 he volunteered for Civil Affairs training. His evaluation presents him as an exceptional young leader. Letters of support demonstrate exemplary performance. Nothing in his record suggests that he is unfit for further service. The only "evidence" against 1LT [Applicant] appears to be a pending charge in North Carolina District court, for Driving While Impaired and leaving the scene of an accident. This case is still pending. I am not the attorney of record in this case. I have communicated with 1LT [Applicant]'s attorney in this manner and he has advised 1LT [Applicant] to make no statement until this matter is disposed of in District Court. This is sound legal advice and should be respected. I do know that Mr. Rxxxxx, 1LT [Applicant]'s attorney in this matter is very confident. Nevertheless, 1LT [Applicant] is presumed to be innocent. This principle should not simply be an antiquated idea found in a dusty old law book. It is a principle that every commander and every officer who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution should take very seriously and should respect. Accordingly, I request that you suspend any final action on this reprimand or elimination until this civilian matter can be resolved. While I am not 1LT [Applicant]'s attorney on the criminal matter, I have reviewed the paperwork accompanying the charges. I note that the Highway patrolman did not observe 1LT [Applicant] drive. He did not observe any accident. The patrolman encountered 1LT [Applicant] after the accident. Consequently, I concur with Mr. Rxxxxx that the evidence in this case seems to be extremely weak. Events in court will tell whether these observations are accurate. Still, I note that there is no military member or independent evidence to support these allegations. Given 1LT [Applicant]'s exceptional record and considerable time in service, I strongly urge you to withhold final determination in these matters until there is a final resolution in this case. 1LT [Applicant] should not be forced to disregard the advice of his attorney. Frankly, any attempt to do so in my view would be unethical. Moreover, 1LT [Applicant]'s silence should never be used against him, even in an administrative matter. Finally, mere accusations, without supporting evidence should never justify adverse action, even in administrative matters. 10. On 11 October 2012, the Acting Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps approved a delay in the further processing of the applicant's administrative elimination and GOMOR filing until 12 December 2012, which coincided with the date of final disposition of the applicant's pending criminal charges in civilian court. 11. On 4 January 2013, the Deputy Commanding General (DCG), XVIII Airborne Corps directed the applicant's GOMOR be permanently filed in his OMPF. 12. On 16 January 2013, the CG, XVIII Airborne Corps forwarded the applicant's elimination action to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). The CG recommended the applicant's elimination with an under honorable conditions characterization of service. 13. On or about 15 February 2013, the applicant appeared before the Cumberland County District Court, where the District Attorney voluntarily dismissed all charges against him. 14. On 22 February 2013, the Chief, Leader Development Division, Officer Personnel Management Directorate, HRC forwarded the applicant's elimination action to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) (DASA-RB) for consideration by a Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board. The forwarding memorandum notes a General Officer Show Cause Authority recommended the applicant be separated with an under honorable conditions characterization of service. 15. The applicant's record contains a memorandum for record (MFR), dated 4 April 2013 and composed by CPT Kxxx Mxxxxxx, a trial counsel member of the XVIII Airborne Corps. In this MFR, CPT Mxxxxxx states: On 24 March 2013, I spoke with the on call officer at the Fayetteville Police Department regarding 1LT [Applicant]'s arrest. The police officer read from the report and relayed the following information. There was a hit and run accident where a bystander got the license plate number of the car that left the scene. Using DMV records an FPD Officer went to 1LT [Applicant]'s house. When he opened the door, 1LT [Applicant] had glassy eyes, slurred speech, was holding on to the door to balance and there was a strong smell of alcohol. He said "you don't have to do this, can't we work something out, my insurance will cover it." He was then arrested and taken to the police station. At the police station 1LT [Applicant] said "I can't have this, my command won't understand." He was then given an intoximeter and blew a .13. When he saw the results he started sobbing and crying. The machine timed out and he was declared a "refusal." He was then given a field sobriety test (at the station) and every exercise was done incorrectly. On 27 March 2013, I spoke to the ADA for Cumberland County who confirmed that the charges against 1LT [Applicant] were dismissed. Because the officer did not see 1LT [Applicant] drive the car and the witness who reported the crime could not positively identify 1LT [Applicant], the ADA did not believe he could prove the element of driving. 16. On 5 April 2013, the CG, XVIII Airborne Corps acknowledged receipt of a 26 February 2013 request that the applicant's separation action be abated; however, after careful consideration of the materials submitted, he declined to endorse the request. The CG further stated that although civilian prosecutors voluntarily dismissed the criminal case, the administrative reprimand and elimination action met legal requirements. 17. On 7 May 2013, a Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board convened at the Army Review Boards Agency to consider the applicant's elimination from service. On 9 May 2013, the DASA-RB notified the Commander, HRC, that after an Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the Probationary Officer Elimination Case pertaining to the applicant, she determined he would be involuntarily eliminated from the Army with an honorable characterization of service. 18. On 13 May 2013, the Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps, was notified of the DASA-RB's decision with respect to the applicant. On 16 May 2013, the applicant acknowledge receipt of official notification of the approved elimination action by the DASA-RB. 19. On 30 May 2013, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, by reason of unacceptable conduct. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 12 years, 8 months, and 10 days of total active service and 10 months and 18 days of inactive service prior to separation. 20. Counsel provides numerous documents submitted as attachments to the applicant's petition for relief. These documents portray the applicant's success in numerous professional endeavors, both during and after his period of military service. 21. On 16 June 2015, in the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions, HRC, who opined that: Based on a review of our records and the information provided, we recommend that ARBA contact the Secretary of the Army (SECARMY) for any compromise or adjustment for relief as it relates to any request to promote 1LT [Applicant] to Captain (CPT). 1LT [Applicant] was removed from the FY12 (CPT) Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection List, at the conclusion of a Promotion Review Board (PRB) by the SECARMY effective 12 July 2013, under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C. § [section] 629(a), Executive Order 12396 and AR [Army Regulation] 600-8-29, paragraph 8-1 b. A formal notification of the PRB result was sent through HRC to his Commander and subsequently to his email address on 29 July 2013, which included the SECARMY's directive to remove him from the promotion list. Our office does not have the authority to overturn or overrule the SECARMY's decision. As of today, we have confirmed that 1LT [Applicant]'s General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 19 July 2012 remains in his Army Military Human Resource Records [AMHRR]. We recommend that he submits his request to remove/expunge this document per AR 600-37 [Unfavorable Information], chapter 7 to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) and if successful, include its decision in his request for relief to the SECARMY. 22. On 28 July 2015, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his information and opportunity for comments and/or rebuttal. However, neither the applicant nor counsel responded. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Army Regulation 600-37 provides that 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. 3. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and is to be filed in the performance section. The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, chapter 7. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and standards) provides 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. Thereafter, 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. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and states that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. Once placed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests removal of his GOMOR and all allied documents from his OMPF, retroactive promotion to CPT, and any other relief the Board deems just and proper. 2. The applicant was arrested on 30 October 2011 for driving while impaired and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was charged in Cumberland County, NC, with DWI, hit and run, failure to stop, and property damage. 3. The applicant received a GOMOR on 19 July 2012 for DWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was afforded the opportunity to review all of the evidence against him and his counsel submitted matters on his behalf prior to a final filing decision. Nevertheless, the DCG, XVIII Airborne Corps, directed that the GOMOR be permanently filed in his OMPF. 4. The applicant's counsel petitioned the CG, XVIII Airborne Corps, for the abatement of the applicant's elimination action following the voluntary dismissal of all charges by the Cumberland County District Attorney. After careful consideration of the materials submitted, the CG declined to endorse the request. The CG noted that although civilian prosecutors voluntarily dismissed the criminal case, the administrative reprimand and elimination action met the necessary legal requirements. 5. The DASA-RB determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the Army with an honorable characterization of service 6. Counsel contends both the GOMOR and elimination actions were unjust based on the Court's dismissal of criminal charges in the applicant's case. Counsel contends that because the District Attorney could not prove the applicant drove the vehicle involved in the auto accident, any resulting disciplinary actions would be suspect and unfair. 7. As relayed to trial counsel from the Fayetteville Police Department arrest record, the arresting officer in the applicant's case was directed to the applicant's residence by a recorded license plate number belonging to the applicant, obtained at the scene of the accident by a bystander. a. When the applicant opened the door, he had glassy eyes, slurred speech, was holding on to the door to balance and there was a strong smell of alcohol. The applicant then informed the officer, "you don't have to do this, can't we work something out, my insurance will cover it." b. The applicant was then arrested and taken to the police station. At the police station, he said "I can't have this, my command won't understand." He was then given an intoximeter and blew a .13. When he saw the results he started sobbing and crying. The machine timed out and he was declared a "refusal." He was then given a field sobriety test (at the station) and every exercise was done incorrectly. 8. In spite of the District Attorney's dismissal of criminal charges in this case, the applicant's actions from the moment he began interacting with the arresting officer indicate it was more probable than not that he was driving while impaired and was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The GOMOR and his subsequent elimination were the consequences of his unacceptable conduct. Whether or not the charges could be proven in District Court is irrelevant; the commander issuing the GOMOR reasonably found the misconduct did in fact occur. The GOMOR and resulting elimination action were justified. 9. After a comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant's OMPF, the applicant's contentions and arguments, and the evidence submitted in support of his application, other than his dissatisfaction, the applicant failed to prove that his GOMOR contains a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. 10. The applicant was removed from the FY12 CPT Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection List, at the conclusion of a PRB convened under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C., section 629(a); Executive Order 12396; and Army Regulation 600-8-29, paragraph 8-1 b. A formal notification of the PRB result was sent through HRC to the applicant's Commander and subsequently to his email address on 29 July 2013, which included the SECARMY's directive to remove him from the promotion list. The underlying cause for his removal has not changed; therefore, there is no basis for either reinstating him on the relevant promotion list or retroactively promoting him to CPT. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017490 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006540 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2