ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20160017456


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  

* promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4)
* personal appearance before the Board

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Online Application)
* Fiscal Year (FY) 15 Chief Warrant Officer (CWO), Promotion Board Results
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states:

	a.  He was on the FY15 CWO Selection List and was selected for promotion to CW4.  Due to flags, he was not promoted when his sequence number would have otherwise come up in September 2016, and he was pending disability retirement under Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Disability Evaluation For Retention, Retirement, Or Separation), chapter 4.  His flags were lifted, he remained promotable, and was retired for disability on 31 October 2016.  His final officer record brief (ORB) on 30 October 2016 reflected he was still promotable, and he was never removed from the promotion list.  He contacted the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and his chain of command numerous times to resolve the issue, but it was never done prior to his retirement date.  He is requesting his records be updated to accurately reflect his grade of CW4, and any backdating of promotion be implemented for administrative measures as well as for pay (if applicable). 

	b.  Per the provisions of 10 United States Code (USC) 1372, Soldiers on a promotion list at the time of retirement for disability will be retired for disability at the promotion list grade.  Further, the Soldier will be promoted to the designated grade effective the day before placement on the retired list.  He was retired for disability at the grade of CW3, though promotable.  According to this, he should have been retired for disability at the promotion list grade, and promoted to CW4 effective 30 October 2016.  
	c.  Per the provisions of 10 USC 1212, Soldiers who are on the promotion list at the time of separation for disability with entitlement to disability severance pay will be paid such compensation at the promotion list grade.  Further, the Soldier will be promoted to the designated grade effective the Soldier's separation date.  This never occurred, and he should have been promoted to CW4 on 30 October 2016 due to being placed on the retirement list effective 31 October 2016.  While he was not entitled to any severance pay due to retiring, he should have been promoted to CW4 on 30 October 2016.

	d.  He does not believe the records are "unjust", per se.  However, this was allegedly being worked out with his chain of command and HRC, as he was told by his battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) X.  When he spoke to HRC, they indicated LTC X did not submit anything to rectify the situation, nor was there any coordination or effort by her or anybody else in his chain of command otherwise to update his situation so that he could get promoted.

2.  The applicant provided the FY15 CWO, Promotion Board Results dated 14 October 2015.  He was selected for promotion to CW4 and his name is listed under Chief Warrant Officer Four (Tech) on page 30, sequence number 206.

3.  A review of the applicant’s service records shows:

	a.  Having had prior service in the U.S. Army Reserves, he was appointed as a warrant officer one and executed an oath of office on 24 August 2005.  He was promoted to CW3 on 1 April 2011.

	b.  He was selected for promotion to CW4 on the FY15 CWO, Promotion Board Results released on 14 October 2015.

	c.  On 1 March 2016, he was counseled by his company commander for suspension from his assigned duties and responsibilities for allegations of inappropriate conduct, and was given a no contact order with Specialist (SPC) X and SPC X.  He acknowledged and stated he would comply with the order.

	d.  On 14 March 2016, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) attorney advisor, reviewed the standards of conduct office (SOCO) administrative inquiry on the applicant and deemed it legally sufficient.  The SOCO inquiry established by a preponderance of evidence that the [applicant] engaged in an improper and adulterous relationship with SPC X in violation of article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentlemen and Fraternization and Adultery), and article 134 (Adultery, Uniform Code of Military Justice).  

	e.  LTC X, battalion commander directed that the applicant receive a relief for cause DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (04-05; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from 18 April 2015 to 21 April 2016.  His rater Mr. X rated him as unsatisfactory and his senior rater (SR) rated him as not qualified.
	f.  On 13 May 2016, LTC X referred the OER to the applicant for acknowledgment and comments.

	g.  On 20 May 2016, Colonel X informed the applicant of a notice to recommend him for elimination from the CID program due to fraternizing and engaging in an adulterous relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier assigned to the 10th Military Police Battalion (MP BN) (CID).  He acknowledged receipt and requested consideration by an accreditation review board (ARB).

	h.  On 7 June 2016, the applicant rebutted his OER in regard to the coding, content, and the ratings of his performance and potential by his rater Mr. X and SR LTC X.
Due to a substantiated investigation against him into adultery and fraternization, he agreed and accepted that a referred OER was highly appropriate, as was the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) that he received.  However, he believes his OER was composed in a manner intended to be excessively derogatory.

		(1)  First, the code '05' for 'Relief for Cause' is inaccurate, as he was never relieved of his duties, much less before the thru date for his annual rating period 16 April 2016 (i.e. 21 April 2016).  While the battalion executive officer explained that the relief occurred when he received his GOMOR, the receipt of that occurred after his annual thru date.  Additionally, his SR, when providing him with the GOMOR on 26 April 2016, stated that once the filing determination was made by the CID commanding general, then it would be discussed and decided if he was to come back to work as the battalion forensic science officer, or appointed other duties, and that his suspension from his duties remained until further notice.  To this day, he has not been informed either verbally or in writing of any relief of duties.

		(2)  Second, his significant duties and responsibilities' are not accurate, and is a severely pared down version of what was contained within his previous evaluations.  It minimizes and generalizes his roles and responsibilities to be less impactful than in reality.  For the comments by his rater, those are not specific to his overall rating period. He completely understand that the incident that resulted in the referred OER must be mentioned, but the comments do not specify anything about his actual duties, as outlined in AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) and DA PAM 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System).

		(3)  He felt the ratings of unsatisfactory and not qualified are not congruent with
both his rater and SR listing successive positions for which he possesses the skills and qualities.  He spoke to his SR LTC X, and asked if he [LTC X] would be willing to reconsider the ratings, given the OER was staying as a referred, and the applicant having received an officially filed GOMOR.  He [applicant] was not expecting any specific answer, and would have accepted a simple no; however, LTC X not only declined to consider it, but stated that his [applicant] performance and potential ratings would have been capable and qualified, but he [LTC X] did not approve of the way the applicant handled himself during the investigation.
		(4)  Based upon all of this, the applicant felt it was clear that not only did he have no chance at a fair investigation or recommendations from my chain of command or his rating chain, but that the ratings of unsatisfactory and not qualified were given as a reprisal for his non-waiver of his legal rights under questioning while represented and advised by his trial defense counsel (TDS), and for exercising his right to an open door visit with his group commander to discuss his concerns.  Additional comments may be reviewed (detailed rebuttal letter enclosed in packet).

	i.  On 16 June 2016, the U.S. Army TDS office notified the U.S. Army CID that the applicant requested their office to direct his retention in the CID program.  The substantiated allegations of adultery and fraternization are an aberration in an otherwise stellar career as a CID Agent.  The [applicant’s] worth and potential for future service to the CID should be measured by his career as a whole, and not on this one mistake.  He has earned the opportunity for rehabilitation.  The ORB was not included as stated in the memorandum.  Self-authored letter from the applicant and 31 letters of support to retain the applicant are as follows:

		(1)  Personal statement wherein he states due to the recent substantiated investigation against him, he has received various and justified admonishments.  The actions taken against him were highly-appropriate consequences for his unprofessional and inexcusable conduct, and he does not dispute the administering of them as he took full responsibility for his behavior and accepted in whole the aforementioned discipline. However, he feels that his removal from the CID program would be excessive and unwarranted.  There is no question that the events in question were not characteristic of a professional chief warrant officer, and the numerous tribulations that were affecting him physically, emotionally, and psychologically do not excuse the avoidable incident that led to the investigation.  In spite of this singular incident, however, he implored the [U.S. Army CID] to take into account his entire record of service, along with the following information, before deciding his future as a CID special agent (SA).  Additional comments may be reviewed (detailed statement enclosed in packet).

		(2)  The applicant’s wife and 30 other supporters wrote their personal and professional thoughts to the U.S. Army CID.  His wife expressed removing her husband [applicant] from the program is the equivalent to saying all that he and his family sacrificed and gave to this organization over the last 13 years was worthless.  By removing her husband [applicant], the U.S. Army CID would exponentially debilitate his ability to take care of his family.  His post military employment options will be negatively impacted by this removal.  Others stated his leadership decisions were fair, sound, and compassionate.  His technical expertise were far and above other CID Agents.  He lived up to every Army value and set a sterling example to his peers and subordinates alike.  Has uncanny ability to foster a positive work environment and challenge those under him to put their best foot forward.  Additional comments may be reviewed (detailed letters enclosed in packet).

	j.  On 14 July 2016, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from the CID program due to committing the offense of fraternizing and engaging in an adulterous relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier assigned to the 10th MP BN (CID).

	k.  On 20 July 2016, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval for the applicant to be eliminated from the CID program due to committing the offense of fraternizing and engaging in an adulterous relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier assigned to the 10th MP BN (CID).

	l.  On 11 August 2016, the commanding general (CG) directed the [applicant’s] elimination from the CID program without convening an ARB.  This decision was based on the results of the SOCO Inquiry for the founded offense of adultery.  This decision is final and not subject to reconsideration.  Also, the CG directed permanent filing of the memorandum in the performance portion of the [applicant’s] Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) in accordance with (IAW) the provisions of AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information),

	m.  The suspension of favorable personnel action report shows the following:

* Flag code LA (Commander’s Investigation) on 1 March 2016 and removed with flag code LD (Final-Unfavorable Report) on 21 April 2016
* Flag code FA (Removal from Selection List – HQDA Initiated) on 1 March 2016 
* Flag code AA (Adverse Action) on 21 April 2016 and removed with flag code AD (Final-Unfavorable Report) on 1 August 2016
* Flag code DA (Referred-OER/Relief for Cause Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) on 18 March 2016 and removed with flag code DC (Final-Favorable Report) on 20 July 2016

	n.  On 15 August 2016, the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Bragg, NC published orders placing him on the
retired list in the retired grade of CW3 effective 31 October 2016.  His DD Form 214 shows in blocks 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) CW3 and W03.

5.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the policy integrator, HRC, Promotions Branch on 4 March 2019.  The advisory official was asked to provide an opinion on the following:  Promotion to CW4.  The advisory official consulted the following sources:  Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System, the Electronic Military Personnel Office (eMILPO), applicant’s DD Form 149, and records supplied in his file.  The advisory official noted the following:

	a.  [Applicant] was selected for promotion to CW4 by the FY15 promotion selection board.  Subsequent to his selection, a post board screening for derogatory information identified a commander's investigation (L) flag, effective 1 March 2016, on his file.  The command informed HRC that [applicant] was being investigated IAW AR 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) for what ultimately became a substantiated finding for an inappropriate, adulterous, relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier.  HRC, Promotions Branch placed an Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) (F) flag, effective 1 March 2016, and awaited the derogatory documents, a relief for cause OER and a general officer elimination from the CID program memorandum, to be added to the AMHRR.  [Applicant] was pending a Promotion Review Board (PRB) and was flagged with an HODA flag at the time he was medically retired.

	b.  The advisory official reached the following conclusions: the Physical Disability Agency (PDA) determined the [applicant’s] retirement grade at CW3 because at the time of his separation, [applicant] was flagged, was not in good standing due to a pending PRB, and had not been cleared for promotion by the Secretary of the Army.

6.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the legal advisor, U.S. Army PDA (USAPDA) on 7 March 2019.  The advisory official was asked to provide an opinion on the following:  Promotion to CW4.  The advisory official consulted the following sources:  Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System, applicant’s DD Form 149, and records supplied in his file.  The advisory official noted the following:

	a.  Background:  [Applicant] referenced provisions of 10 USC 1372 excerpt stating a Soldier on a promotion list at the time of retirement for disability will be retired for disability at the promotion list grade.

	b.  Analysis:  The claimant postulates he was on a promotion list prior to his
disability retirement on 31 October 2016 and per regulation should be awarded the
rank of CW4.  

	c.  Conclusion:  A review of the [applicant’s] case file and documents submitted to the Board identifies sufficient evidence to affirm [applicant’s] claim.  Based on the background and analysis, the [applicant’s] request is legally sufficient.

7.  On 12 March 2019, Ms. X, Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) sent an email to Mr. X, USAPDA informing him that HRC denied the applicant’s request and asked if he would have changes to his findings.

8.  The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinions to give him an opportunity to submit comments, he responded.

9.  On 14 March 2019, Mr. X, USAPDA sent a follow up to his initial advisory opinion on 7 March 2019.  

	a.  The USAPDA revoked their statement that the applicant’s request is legally sufficient.

	b.  The USAPDA’s previous review of the available and provided documents in  [applicant’s] case founded his claim and their advisory opinion that he was eligible for promotion due to 10 USC 1372.

	c.  HRC, Promotions Branch provided a separate advisory opinion using additional evidence available within the applicant's permanent file.  This additional evidence consisted of a flag and supporting documentation clarifying [applicant’s] initial ineligibility for promotion which continued in place until his placement on the Permanent Disability Retirement (PDR) list.  As a result, [applicant’s] request, having full awareness of the specific underlying details of the case find his request to be in fact, legally insufficient.  The USAPDA's recommendation with respect to [applicant’s] claim revised accordingly and updated to reflect denied.

10.  On 11 April 2019, the applicant provided a response to HRC, Promotions Branch and the USAPDA’s advisory opinions:

	a.  Response to USAPDA:  The evidence obtained from HRC and used by USAPDA is inaccurate and clearly was not verified by them prior to revoking their 7 March 2019 finding of legally sufficient.  If they would have verified the information, they would have found HRC's basis was not supported by evidence and I am still eligible and deserving of promotion under 10 USC 1372.

	b.  Response to HRC, Promotions Branch:

      (1)  In paragraph 3 of HRC's 4 March 2019 memorandum, they stated HRC was awaiting derogatory documents, a relief for cause OER and a General Officer Elimination from CID Program Memorandum to be added to the AMHRR.

      (2)  The elimination memorandum was effective on 11 August 2016, however, it was not added to the AMHRR until 29 September 2016.  Therefore, it was added prior to his separation date of 31 October 2016.

      (3)  The OER has a thru date of 21 April 2016, with rebuttal comments added by [applicant] on 8 June 2016.  Following his rebuttal and a commander's inquiry, it was updated and signed by his rater and SR on 8 July 2016.  It was not immediately provided to him, but he finally got the opportunity to sign it on 21 September 2016, 41 days before his retirement.

      (4)  His OER was effective on 21 April 2016, and his elimination was effective 11 August 2016.  Both actions and accompanying derogatory documents were complete well before his Army separation date.  His OER should have been uploaded immediately by his S1 considering his pending retirement date just over a month away.  There is/was no reason for his OER to be delayed in its addition to his AMHRR, so there is no reason he should be held liable for it not being uploaded in a timely manner.

      (5)  Additionally, IAW AR 600-8-22 (i.e. AR 600-8-2) (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 11 May 2016, paragraph 2-9 b (4) Remove the flag on the date the appropriate authority directs the filing of the signed memorandum (AR 600-37) or on the date the memorandum is rescinded without filing.  The HQDA flag should have therefore been lifted effective the date of the decision by the commanding general, USACIDC, especially since it was initiated effective 1 March 2016, well before HQDA’s awareness.  The equal effect should be applied to the lifting of the flag (the date all derogatory documents became effective), all of which occurred no less than 41 days before my retirement on 31 October 2016, which is IAW AR 600-8-22 (i.e. AR 600-8-2), paragraph 2-9 b (4).  All other personnel actions taken pursuant to this event were handled expeditiously, as they should have been, with the exception of the uploading of his OER to his AMHRR.  Applying a different standard to the OER that has an improper negative affect on his status is unfair and injudicious.

12.  By law (Title 10, USC, section 579, Removal from a promotion list.

* The name of a warrant officer recommended for promotion by a selection board convened under this chapter may be removed from the report of the selection board by the President
* The Secretary concerned may remove the name of a warrant officer who is 
* on a promotion list as a result of being recommended for promotion by a selection board convened under this chapter at any time before the promotion is effective 

13.  By law (Title 10, USC, section 1372), unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability or whose name is placed on the temporary disability retired list is entitled to the grade equivalent to the permanent regular or Reserve grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he is retired and which was found to exist as a result of a physical examination.  The applicant was not promotable at the time of his retirement for disability.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief was not warranted.  The applicant’s contentions, advisory opinions, and his rebuttal were carefully considered.  The applicant was on a promotion selection list for promotion to CW4.  He was flagged from personal actions while on the promotion selection list by HRC for removal from the promotion list.  He received a letter directing him to request elimination from the Army on 11 August 2016.  He would have been separated and might have been reduced to CW2 because of the last rank he successfully served in.  The flag remained on his record through his expeditious medical retirement.  Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed he was not in a promotion status at the time of his retirement.  

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

X	X	X	DENY APPLICATION


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.
	 
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.


REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation (Officer Promotions) in effect at the time, prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system.  It is linked to AR 600–8 and
provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support officer promotions.  

	a.  This regulation supports the objectives of the Army’s officer promotion system, which include filling authorized spaces with the best qualified officers.  It also provides for career progression based upon recognition of an officer’s potential to serve in positions of increased responsibility.  Additionally, it precludes promoting the officer who is not eligible or becomes disqualified, thus providing an equitable system for all officers.  This regulation applies to the Active Army, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) commissioned and warrant officers on an active duty list.

	b.  Paragraph 1-9 e, appropriate field promotion authorities, as provided by chapter 3, will conduct promotions to first lieutenant and chief warrant officers (CWO) two.  Selection for and promotion of CWOs to the grades of CW5, CW4, and CW3 will be according to sections 571 through 583, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 571 through 583).

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code (Armed Forces), provides the legal basis for the roles, missions and organization of each of the services as well as the U.S. Department of Defense.  Each of the five subtitles deals with a separate aspect or component of the armed services.

	a.  10 U.S. Code §?575. Recommendations for promotion by selection boards.

	(1)  A selection board convened under section 573(a) of this title shall recommend for promotion to the next higher grade those warrant officers considered by the board whom the board, giving due consideration to the needs of the armed force concerned for warrant officers with particular skills, considers best qualified for promotion within each grade (or grade and competitive category) considered by the board. 

	(2)  In the case of a selection board to consider warrant officers for selection for promotion to the grade of chief warrant officer, CW–3, chief warrant officer, CW–4, or chief warrant officer, CW–5, the Secretary concerned shall establish the number of warrant officers that the selection board may recommend from among warrant officers being considered from below the promotion zone within each grade (or grade and competitive category).  

	(3)  The number of officers recommended for promotion from below the promotion zone may not exceed 10 percent of the total number recommended, except that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, when the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, may authorize such percentage to be increased to not more than 15 percent. If the number determined under this subsection with respect to a promotion zone within a grade (or grade and competitive category) is less than one, the board may recommend one such officer for promotion from below the zone within that grade (or grade and competitive category).

	(4)  A selection board convened under section 573(a) of this title may not recommend a warrant officer for promotion unless: 

      (a)  The officer receives the recommendation of a majority of the members of the board; and

	(b)  A majority of the members of the board find that the officer is fully qualified for promotion.

	(5)  Each time a selection board is convened under section 573(a) of this title to consider warrant officers in a competitive category for promotion to the next higher grade, each warrant officer in the promotion zone, and each warrant officer above the promotion zone, for the grade and competitive category under consideration (except for a warrant officer precluded from consideration under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned under section 577 of this title) shall be considered for promotion.

	b.  10 U.S. Code §?579, Removal from a promotion list.

(1)  The name of a warrant officer recommended for promotion by a selection 
board convened under this chapter may be removed from the report of the selection board by the President.

	(2)  The Secretary concerned may remove the name of a warrant officer who is 
on a promotion list as a result of being recommended for promotion by a selection board convened under this chapter at any time before the promotion is effective. 

	(3)  An officer whose name is removed from the list of officers recommended for 
promotion by a selection board continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion. 

	(4)  If the next selection board that considers the warrant officer for promotion 
under this chapter selects the warrant officer for promotion and the warrant officer is promoted, the Secretary concerned may, upon his promotion, grant him the same effective date for pay and allowances and the same date of rank, and the same position on the warrant officer active-duty list as the warrant officer would have had if his name had not been so removed.

	(5)  If the next selection board does not select the warrant officer for promotion, or if his name is again removed under subsection (a) from the list of officers recommended for promotion by the selection board or under subsection (b) from the warrant officer promotion list, he shall be treated for all purposes as if he has twice failed of selection for promotion.

3.  AR 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) in effect at the time, prescribes Army policy for the suspension of favorable personnel actions (Flag) function of the military personnel system.  It is linked to AR 600–8 (Military Human Resources Management) and provides principles of support, standards of service, and policies regarding the initiation, transfer, removal, and management of Flags.  This regulation institutes a system to guard against the execution of specified favorable personnel actions for Soldiers not in good standing (for example, unfavorable status).  This regulation applies to the Active Army, the ARNG/ARNGUS, and the USAR, unless otherwise stated.  Paragraph 2-2e, pending “delay of or consideration for removal” from a command, promotion, or school selection list, to include an ARNGUS unit vacancy promotion list (field initiated (Flag code C) or Headquarters, Department of the Army initiated (HQDA) (Flag code F)).  HQDA initiated Flags are authenticated by Human Resources Command (AHRC–PDV–P) or the Director, ARNG (ARNG–HRP).

3.  Title 10, USC, section 1372 (Grade on retirement physical disability, members of the Armed Forces), states unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 or 1204 of this title, or whose name is placed on the temporary disability retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of this title, is entitled to the grade equivalent to the highest of the following: 

	a.  The grade or rank in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the temporary disability retired list or, if his name was not carried on that list, on the date he is retired. 

	b.  The highest temporary grade or rank in which he served satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the armed force from which he is retired. 
	c.  The permanent regular or Reserve grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he is retired and which was found to exist as a result of a physical examination. 

	d.  The temporary grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he is retired, if eligibility for that promotion was required to be based on cumulative years of service or years of service in grade and the disability was discovered as a result of a physical examination. 


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20160017456


9


1