BOARD DATE: 17 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016838 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: 17 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016838 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. BOARD DATE: 17 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016838 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, in effect, that a special selection board (SSB) reconsider him for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC). 2. He states that the promotion selection board (PSB) did not fully apply the Secretary of the Army's instructions for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 LTC Medical Corps (MC) and Dental Corps (DC) promotion board, dated 12 February 2016 (hereafter referenced as the Memorandum of Instruction (MOI)), consistent with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 615, as it relates to: a. giving "consideration to an officer's clinical proficiency and skill as a health professional to at least as great an extent as the Board gives to the officer's administrative and management skills." As a board certified specialist physician, he has the highest level of clinical proficiency and skill. b. the administrative errors contained in his promotion board file. 3. He provides: * MOI for the President and Board Members, dated 12 February 2016 * MOI for Select Commanders, dated 12 July 2016 * his SSB request, dated 21 August 2016 * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) email, dated 8 September 2016 * two DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is a major (MAJ) in the Medical Corps serving in the Regular Army. 2. As of the results of FY 2017 LTC MC/DC, the applicant has an involuntary separation date of 30 April 2018 due to his second non-selection for promotion in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) and in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 611a. 3. The applicant provides: a. two OERs covering the period 13 October 2012 through 14 July 2014, rendered while a MAJ performing the duties of the Chief, Department of Behavioral Health, Fort Campbell, KY. He received many laudatory comments to include the following – * one of the very best psychiatrists the MC has produced * ranked number 1 out of 21 MAJs * he facilitated behavioral health policy which saved countless lives of 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) Soldiers * he planned and built the entire embedded behavioral health system for Fort Campbell, KY * gifted with research and he should be training future psychiatrists * select for LTC and Intermediate Level Education (ILE) upon completion of Captains' Career Course * board certified psychiatrist b. his SSB request, dated 21 August 2016, wherein he cites information listed on his OERs as evidence of his demonstrated leadership, effectiveness, potential for service, administrative/management skills, and clinical proficiency. Further, he identifies administrative errors relating to his education transcripts and incorrect award citation dates. Lastly, he explains that he was not available to attend the Captains' Career Course due to the operational tempo of his assignment as the Chief of Behavioral Health and the lack of senior officers to perform his duties during his absence. c. HRC denied his request for SSB consideration. 4. The Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions, HRC, provided an advisory opinion on 23 May 2017. The advisory official stated: a. Based on a review of the records and the information provided, HRC officials determined the applicant's request did not have merit. b. Subsequent to the convening date(s) of any promotion board(s) each candidate has an opportunity to correspond directly with the President of the board and its members, to address any issues that they felt were not readily visible by viewing in the (promotion) file or what they believe to be important during consideration for promotion. Failure to do so does not constitute material unfairness or a material error. c. Cases not considered by SSBs include (but are not limited to) missing Department of the Army (DA) photographs, awards below the Silver Star, errors in the Officer Record Brief (ORB) or official military personnel file (OMPF). Regulatory guidance, along with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 320.11, prohibit special board reconsideration when an individual, by maintaining reasonably careful records and in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or OMPF. Their records indicate that the applicant did not take the opportunity to view or certify his promotion board file. d. The exact reason(s) for his non-selection(s) for promotion are unknown because statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 613a, prevent disclosure of promotion board proceedings to anyone who was not a member of the presiding promotion board. Therefore, any presumption, suspicion, comments, conjecture, or hearsay related to non-selection is purely speculative. It can only be concluded that the promotion board determined that the applicant's overall record, when compared with the records of his contemporaries, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion. 5. The applicant responded to the advisory opinion on 4 June 2017. a. The extraordinary circumstances of his service as an Army psychiatrist, in the midst of the suicide crisis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)/mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) challenges, rapid deployments of units at Fort Campbell, including the 101st Airborne, which he supported, and the overall lack of behavioral health resources during that time, makes his situation far from typical. b. Although the HRC advisory opinion is technically accurate, it does not capture the totality of the MC officer’s practical PSB experiences. He states: * the advisory opinion discounts the fact that the PSB decision is reviewable * the PSB was unable to fully consider matters related to Army psychiatric/behavioral health providers * he had to make the difficult decision to not attend the Captains' Career Course due to the time he dedicated to clinical and leadership duties * he served in a colonel billet and received exceptional ratings * he did not write a letter to the President of the Board because he was advised that the content was not in his best interest and just appeared to offer excuses (email provided) * he did not certify his promotion board file because at the time he was away from his military computer presenting his work on PTSD treatment at a national meeting (conference schedule provided) * the administrative errors alone resulted in his non-selection REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support officer promotions. Chapter 7 provides that SSBs may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when Headquarters, DA (HQDA) discovers: a. An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error. This would include officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the temporary disability retired list and who have since been placed on the active duty list for which an SSB is required. b. The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error where an SSB is discretionary, c. The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information wherein an SSB is discretionary. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies and mandated operating tasks for the Military Personnel (MILPER) Information Management/Records Program of the Military Personnel System. Paragraph 2-3 (Composition of the OMPF) provides that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. It is routinely used by career managers and selection boards. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104, paragraph 4-9 (Rules for Administering Officer Pre-Board Processing), provides that officers in the zone of consideration will review and update their ORB and should obtain and review their OMPF. 4. DA Army Pamphlet 600-4 (Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Professional Development and Career Management) serves primarily as a professional development guide for all AMEDD officers. It does not prescribe the path of assignments or educational requirements that will guarantee success, but rather describes the full spectrum of developmental opportunities an officer can expect for a successful career. a. The Officer Education System is a sequence of the professional military education (PME) for officers in subjects that enhance knowledge of the science and art of war. The PME is a progressive education system that prepares leaders for increased responsibilities and successful performance at higher levels by developing the key knowledge, skills, and attributes one requires to operate successfully in any environment. PME is linked to promotions, future assignments, and career management models for all officers. b. AMEDD Officers satisfy military education requirements primarily through military schooling including the Captains' Career Course. c. Promotion boards consider the whole person concert including military and civilian education and training, and assignment history and professional development. These two factors are among the nine factors AMEDD promotion boards should consider. d. The promotion process objective is to advance to the next higher grade the best-qualified officers, and further, to promote officers based on the whole person concept and demonstrated potential to serve in the next higher grade. 5. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)), paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board 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. In addition, the Board is not an investigative body. DISCUSSION: 1. By law and regulation, PSBs cannot divulge the reason for non-selection of a particular officer. In addition, the ABCMR is not an investigative body; therefore, there is no basis for further discussion concerning the applicant's suggestion that the FY 2016 LTC MC/DC PSB did not comply with the Secretary of the Army's guidance. 2. Prior to the convening date of the FY 2016 LTC MC/DC PSB, it appears the applicant was not fully educationally qualified as per AMEDD established officer development guidance. Evidence that an officer has completed the military education requirements should be in the officer's file prior to the start of the PSB. From the applicant's evidence, he had started the Captains' Career Course by correspondence but he had not completed this training. 3. He states, in effect, that his nonselection for promotion was the result of the PSB failing to completely consider his clinical and technical skills and failing to understand how difficult administrative actions (e.g., training) are when there are real and relevant demands placed on MC Officers who are responsible for treating Soldiers suffering from PTSD, TBI, and other behavioral health issues. 4. His clinical and technical proficiency are not in question; nonetheless, neither this Board nor the applicant are privy to the exact reason(s) for his nonselection. The guidance requires PSBs to consider the whole person concept including completion of appropriate military education when reviewing a promotion board file. PSBs select those officers found best-qualified under the whole person concept. 5. SSBs may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when certain conditions are met. Those conditions include: a. The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error. b. The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information. 6. The available evidence does not clearly indicate that the conditions for referring the applicant to an SSB have been met. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016838 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016838 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2