BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004702 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 BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004702 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records set forth in Docket Number AR20140012014, dated 10 February 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. BOARD DATE: 31 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004702 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, via a letter to the Secretary of the Army, reconsideration of his earlier requests to: * review the denial of his automatic appointment to the rank of second lieutenant (2LT)/O-1 in 1988 * review his dismissal from Warrant Officer Candidate School in 1993 * review his non-selection for promotion to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 prior to his retirement in January 2001 2. The applicant states: a. He is requesting assistance in obtaining adjudication from various adverse military administrative decisions detriment to his military career. He tried to resolve these adverse decisions and wrongdoings in 1994, but being assigned overseas made it impossible. Due to host nation conflicts, he was restricted from returning to the United States to pursue adjudication with a lawyer. His intentions were to file a complaint after returning to the United States, but he did not because his displaced household items had the documentation he needed to file. He contacted the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for assistance after recovering the misplaced documents, and the information was forwarded to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The ABCMR denied his application based on the statutory time limit. b. As a result of adverse administrative actions by military personnel, he was prevented from receiving a direct appointment as a commissioned officer, which only entailed reciting the oath of office because he had completed 4 years of Reserve Officers' Training Corps service. Also, the direct appointment application packet he submitted for consideration was mysteriously misplaced. He was not selected to attend Officer Candidate School (OCS), even though he was a 4-year Reserve Officers' Training Corps student, a college graduate, and had passed the officer candidate test. c. He received recommendations and acceptance into the Warrant Officer Candidate Course and was subsequently harassed, discriminated against, and denied equal opportunity, to complete the course. He and a female African American both had bachelor's degrees. All other candidates in their class only had 2 years of college. He believes they were both singled out and eliminated from the course due to cynicism. d. In March 1994, he contacted the Armed Services Committee after exhausting all other options for assistance and he was informed a task force would investigate his case. Since that time, he has not received any correspondence from or confirmation of action taken by a task force. e. He attempted to curtail his overseas assignment orders to Germany because he wanted to pursue the adverse actions taken by the Warrant Officer Candidate School. His branch chief told him he had to accept the assignment because it could not be curtailed. During his overseas assignment, his unit received notification that all commands were included in the Army's stop loss policy, which restricted all Soldiers from returning to the United States because of conflicts in Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, and Macedonia. These actions should have precluded the statute of limitations as a basis for denial of his application. f. The second reason the ABCMR denied his application was because it did not know what military records required adjustment. The general purpose of his complaints and intent were misconstrued. All correspondence and statements written on his behalf were requests for adjudication and an honest review. g. The ABCMR denied his application for adjudication because he stated he was being denied a promotion, which the Board termed as inaccurate and speculative. The Board did not refer to the fact that he was not given the same opportunity as every other Soldier regarding promotion. No recommendation was given for him to attend his military occupational specialty Noncommissioned Officer Advanced Course in order to compete among his peers and be promoted to SFC. The nonattendance of the advanced course automatically prevented him from receiving all future promotions. In 1994, he discovered an erroneous award document in his personnel file, which was maliciously and mysteriously placed there. He felt the erroneous award intentionally prevented his selection for SFC. h. He requests assistance in reversing the ABCMR decision that was based on the statute of limitations. He also requests compensation for the adverse actions which caused immeasurable career damage or consideration of the following actions: (1) allowing him to be appointed to the rank of 2LT because of the misplacement of his direct appointment application by Army personnel. Also considering the fact that taking the oath of office was the only requirement needed to have received a commission; (2) granting an appointment because the direct appointment program and regulatory standards were being reconstructed without informing him of alternative actions to take after contacting them initially and was told they would contact everyone; (3) granting an appointment based upon the non-selection of OCS, although he was fully qualified; (4) granting an appointment because of being unjustly eliminated from the Warrant Officer Candidate Course; and (5) granting an automatic promotion to the grade of SFC/E-7 due to the fact that he was unable to compete with his peers because he was not selected for the Noncommissioned Officer Advanced Course due to no fault of his own and because of the erroneous information placed in his military personnel file which also prevented him from being promoted to SFC/E-7. i. After leaving the military and while employed at Fort Hood, TX, as a civilian, he witnessed Soldiers who he trained and for whom he was responsible when they were specialist fours being promoted to SFCs and master sergeants (MSGs) within a 9-year period. j. Although he has been unfairly mistreated, he did not waver. In 2012, he was asked by the Assistant Secretary of Defense to serve as a volunteer advocate for the military as an area chairman for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Amidst all of the adversity he has experienced during his military career and without justice being served in many ways, he sometimes finds it difficult to continue serving without receiving favorable support. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored letter to the Secretary of the Army, dated 15 January 2016, with 89 enclosures outlined as 1-A through 4-D, in a document titled "Section I" * self-authored letter to the Army Review Boards Agency Case Management Division, dated 13 September 2017 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140012014 on 10 February 2015. 2. The applicant's contentions are new evidence that were not previously considered by the Board and warrant consideration at this time. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1981. He was promoted to the rank/grade of staff sergeant/E-6 effective 1 May 1991. 4. His records contain an application for Reserve appointment submitted in October 1987 and resubmitted in March 1988, together with letters of recommendation. Following acceptance of his application, he appeared before a local OCS board on 11 April 1989. On 27 July 1989, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Accessions Branch advised him that his application was considered, but he was not selected. He was also advised that he could reapply, if eligible, 1 year after the selection board adjournment date (29 June 1989). 5. His records contain an application for Warrant Officer Candidate School, together with letters of recommendation. On 9 June 1993, Headquarters, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, notified him that he was selected by the Warrant Officer Selection Board for May 1993, and he was tentatively scheduled to attend the Warrant Officer Candidate Course at Fort Rucker, AL, on or about 24 August 1993. 6. His records contain attendance records at the Warrant Officer Candidate School at Fort Rucker, together with evaluations, additional duty appointments, multiple reports of observation, and multiple training officer consultations. His consultation sheets show he was performing below average and did not demonstrate the characteristics required to become an effective leader. His personal area was declining (instead of improving), his test scores were substandard, his leadership performance was weak, his judgment was questionable, and his academic records reflected multiple failures. Additionally, he had acquired 29 "pink slips" for various minor infractions, failed an academic evaluation on basic doctrine, received the lowest peer evaluation, was placed on probation, and demonstrated deficient communication skills. 7. His records contain a Record of Student Elimination Action initiated by the 1st Warrant Officer Company on 27 September 1993, citing his failure to progress. He presented oral and written statements to his commander in rebuttal to the elimination action. His chain of command recommended his elimination and on 30 September 1993, the Commandant, Warrant Officer Career Center, approved the recommendation for elimination. The applicant was advised of and acknowledged receipt of the elimination action on 4 October 1993. He subsequently appealed the decision, but his appeal was denied by the Deputy Commanding General on 14 October 1993. 8. His records contain a letter from Office of the Inspector General, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, dated 11 January 1994, informing him that his elimination was conducted to standards and followed established procedures. 9. He retired on 31 January 2001 and he was placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of staff sergeant/E-6 on 1 February 2001. 10. There is no evidence showing he was recommended for promotion to SFC/E-7, he was selected for promotion or placed on a permanent recommended promotion list for promotion to SFC/E-7, or he was promoted to SFC/E-7 prior to his retirement on 31 January 2001. 11. On 10 February 2015, the ABCMR denied his requests for the following issues as no error or injustice was found: * review of the denial of his automatic appointment to the rank of 2LT/O-1 in 1988 * review of his dismissal from Warrant Officer Candidate School in 1993 * review of his non-selection for promotion to SFC/E-7 prior to his retirement in January 2001 12. He provided a self-authored letter, dated 13 September 2017, stating acts of discrimination, administrative negligence, and fraudulent file tampering were perpetuated. These circumstances curtailed his advancement while serving in the Army, which he feels warrant adjudication and compensation. There were military reassignment ramifications which prohibited the curtailment of his overseas assignment in order for him to rectify the dismissal decision by the Warrant Officer Candidate School and enlisted promotion problems he had encountered. In addition, his last reassignment contributed to the misplacement of important documents relevant to his case. Based upon these situations, he feels he is a victim of circumstances without justice prevailing. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides the rules and steps for managing the centralized promotion system to SFC/E-7, MSG/E-8, and sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 and states: a. Headquarters, Department of the Army, promotes Soldiers to the ranks of SFC, MSG, and SGM. b. To standardize promotion qualification and to ensure promotion of the best qualified Soldiers, recommendation by a promotion selection board and placement on a permanent recommended promotion list is required for all promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM. c. Headquarters, Department of the Army, will determine the total number of promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM on a monthly basis. The date of rank and effective date of promotion will be the same. Promotion is not valid and will be revoked if a Soldier is not in a promotable status on the effective date of promotion. d. Soldiers must not have an approved retirement with a date of approval prior to the convening date of the selection board. 2. 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 ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR's jurisdiction under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, extends to any military record of the Department of the Army. It is the nature of the record and the status of the applicant that define the ABCMR's jurisdiction. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention the ABCMR denied his original application based on the statutory time limit. The evidence of record shows the ABCMR completed a comprehensive review of his records on 10 February 2015. 2. His request to review the denial of his automatic appointment to the rank of 2LT in 1988 was noted. However, the evidence of record shows an OCS selection board considered his case, but did not select him, and the reason for his non-selection is unknown. There is no evidence showing the OCS selection board decision was in error. 3. His request to review his dismissal from the Warrant Officer Candidate Course in 1993 was carefully considered. He contends he was harassed, discriminated against, and denied equal opportunity to complete the course. 4. There is no evidence showing he was the victim of discrimination. His consultation sheets show he was performing below average and did not demonstrate the characteristics required to become an effective leader. His personal area was declining (instead of improving), his test scores were substandard, his leadership performance was weak, his judgment was questionable, and his academic records reflected multiple failures. Additionally, he acquired 29 "pink slips" for various minor infractions, failed an academic evaluation on basic doctrine, received the lowest peer evaluation, was placed on probation, and demonstrated deficient communication skills. There is no evidence showing his elimination from the Warrant Officer Candidate Course was in error. 5. His request to review his non-selection for promotion to SFC/E-7 prior to his retirement in January 2001 was also noted. He contends he was not given the same opportunities as every other Soldier. 6. There is no evidence showing he was recommended for promotion to E-7, he was selected for promotion or placed on a permanent recommended promotion list for promotion to E-7, or he was promoted to E-7 prior to his retirement on 31 January 2001. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004702 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004702 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2