ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170013754 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * backdated promotion to the Rank/Grade of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)/O-5 * all active duty and retired back pay and allowances * removal of all adverse comments from two Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) 1 November 1979 through 9 June 1980 and 27 August 1984 through 20 June 1985 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Request for Reconsideration * rebuttal to OER 1 November 1979 through 9 June 1980 * OERs * Letters of Support * rebuttal to OER 27 August 1984 through 20 June 1985 * OER Support Form * Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Certificate * CGSC Service School Academic Evaluation Report * letters of support * Directorate of Logistics staff FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20150010691 on 9 June 2016. 2. The applicant states: a. He writes in reference to his application that was denied via a letter dated 10 June 2016. He is requesting reconsideration of that decision. b. He remained shocked and dismayed at the Board's decision as do many of those that continued to support him in this action. His application included 53 letters of support to the Board from senior Army Officer, Noncommissioned Officers, and Civilians requesting his immediate promotion to LTC. Their collective testimony unequivocally reaffirms his 28 years of consistent leadership, moral character, and outstanding duty performance in support of the US Army. c. He is determined to pursue every option available to secure his promotion to LTC. It is not about the money but about justice and receiving his just due. He would willingly forgo any retroactive pay as would normally be paid in the case. This is his final attempt to persuade the Board to approve his case. If not successful, he will submit his case to the US District Court for all costs and entitlements. 3. In the previous ABCMR case AR20150010691, the applicant provides and his service records showed the following information for the Board's consideration: a. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which shows: * The applicant was discharged in the rank of Major (MAJ)/O-4 * he entered active duty on 7 February 1972 * he was separated on 29 February 1992 * he completed 20 years and 29 days of service * his effective date of pay grade to MAJ was 1 August 1983 * his type of separation was retirement for length of service * his character of service was honorable b. A DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) dated 30 June 1977, which shows: * the applicant was a parachutist effective 12 May 1973 * he was in Vietnam from 2 September 1972 through 23 February 1973 * he was in Germany from 1 March 1977 through 7 July 1980 * he was in Korea from 22 September 1983 through 29 September 1985 * he was a MAJ with a date of rank of 1 August 1983 c. A letter from the National Personnel Records Center, dated 8 June 2005 which shows the awards the applicant is entitled to. d. The following award certificates, orders, and citations: * award certificate for the Legion of Merit, dated 31 January 1992 * Permanent Orders 35-7, published by Headquarters, 21st Theater Army Area Command, dated 28 February 1992 awarding him the Legion of Merit * award certificate for the Bronze Star Medal dated 12 February 1973 * the citation for the Bronze Star Medal * award certificate for the Meritorious Service Medal dated 15 June 1990 * the citation for the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for service in Korea from June 1985 to January 1987 * award certificate for the Army Commendation Medal, dated 22 June 1983 * award certificate for the Joint Service Achievement Medal, dated 25 March 1986 * award certificate for the Army Achievement Medal, dated 24 April 1991 * permanent orders 26, published by Headquarters, 21st Theater Army Area Command, dated 24 April 1991 awarding him the Army Achievement Medal e. Letter Orders Number A-1-12, published by headquarters, Sixth United States Army, dated 5 January 1972 ordering the applicant to active duty in the rank of Second Lieutenant (2LT) effective 8 February 1972. f. An OER as a 2LT from 30 November 1972 through 18 February 1973, which shows: * he was rated superior * promote him to the next higher grade ahead of his contemporaries g. An OER as a 2LT from 25 February 1973 through 30 January 1974, which shows: * he was rated superior * his rater stated promote him immediately * his senior rater stated promote him ahead of his contemporaries h. An OER as a First Lieutenant (1LT) from 31 January 1974 through 28 October 1974, which shows: * he was rated superior * promote him ahead of his contemporaries i. An OER as a 1LT from 29 October 1974 through 16 February 1975, which shows: * he was rated superior * promote him ahead of his contemporaries j. An OER as a Captain (CPT) from 17 February 1975 through 16 February 1976, which shows: * his rater rated him outstanding * his senior rater rated him superior * promote him ahead of his contemporaries k. An OER as a CPT from 17 February 1976 through 6 July 1976, which shows: * he was rated outstanding * promote ahead of his contemporaries l. A letter of appreciation from his company commander, dated 11 January 1974, which states the commander had an appreciation and commended him for a the superb manner he performed his duties as a 2LT from 13 March 1973 through 11 January 1974. m. A letter from the Director for Procurement of Sacramento Army Depot, dated 15 February 1977. n. A Diploma for successful completion of Defense Procurement Management Course, dated 30 October 1975. o. A DA Form 750 (Record of Training), dated 10 August 1976 for completing the Department of Defense Procurement Management Course as the Distinguished Graduate as a 1LT. p. An Honor Award Citation presented to the applicant for being the Distinguished Graduate of Signal Officer Advanced Course as a CPT. q. A Letter of Commendation, dated 25 January 1977 for his completion of the Signal Officer Advanced Course as the Distinguished Graduate. r. An OER as a CPT from 29 January 1977 through 18 August 1977, which shows: * he was rated as outstanding * promote him immediately s. Letters of commendation from his Battalion Commander which show: * on 16 March 1977, he was commended for his outstanding performance during the General's Inspection as a CPT * on 27 October 1977, he was commended for his outstanding performance of duty during a multi-national Exercise as a CPT * on 1 December 1977, he was commended as a CPT for his outstanding performance of duty as Communications Officer during the commander's tenure t. A letter of recommendation from his Battalion Commander, dated 29 November 1977 recommending him for admission to graduate school. u. An OER as a CPT from 19 August 1977 through 17 August 1978, which shows: * he was rated as outstanding * promote immediately v. An OER as a CPT from 18 August 1978 through 22 December 1978, which shows: * he was rated as outstanding * promote immediately w. An OER as a CPT from 23 December 1978 through 31 October 1979, which shows: * he was rated as outstanding * promote immediately x. A personal statement of the applicant, dated 20 May 2015, which states: (1) Looking back on his Army career, he identified three events he felt were center to being non-selected to LTC. One year prior to his LTC Promotion Board, the Army transferred him from the Signal Branch to the Quartermaster Branch due to redesign efforts to consolidate supply and service logistic functions under the Quartermaster Branch. Prior to the transfer, he had a number of logistics assignments in the Signal Branch so it wasn't an illogical decision; however, the transfer resulted in him being unknown to the Quartermaster Branch when it came to promotion rankings. He was not a "must promote" LTC candidate. (2) His OER from 1 November 1979 through 9 June 1980 covered his last seven months in command. He was evaluated by a new battalion commander and a new brigade commander. The OER stems from his refusal to submit to his battalion commander what he perceived was a grave injustice to one of his Soldiers. He felt requesting a No Confinement Plea with the brigade commander on his Soldier's behalf was the only just action to take. He did so only after advising the battalion commander of his intention. He fully accepted responsibility for the decision and all of his actions in command and would risk his career again if necessary. (3) During the 1970s, the Army had a drug problem, which impacted morale and combat performance. At the unit level, it was played down or swept under the rug. He was one of the few company commanders that confronted the drug problem head on. From his first day in command, he stood in front of his Soldiers and declared his war on drugs, offering amnesty to those who came clean. He worked with the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and initiated drug busts, dog searches, and CID raids on and off post. In the end, he won the fight and many of his Soldiers thanked him for making a difference. (4) He was commended by the Assistant Division Commander at an Officer Call in Bamberg, Germany as being the only company commander out there doing his job right to tackle the drug problem and weeding out the dopers. The Division Inspector General also commended his actions and had all subsequent Congressional Inquiries redirected to his office for reply. (5) His battalion commander saw his efforts as positive and commended his good leadership. The battalion commander's replacement saw his efforts as a negative bad news story for the battalion and was reluctant to provide tangible support. The best example of this was the new battalion commander's driver was a racist and dope leader. The applicant had a good network of bad-turned-good Soldiers working for him who provided him the inside story on the battalion commander's driver and numerous other Soldiers. The information he was provided helped him win the war against drugs. He presented the facts to the battalion commander several times, detailing how his driver was using and selling drugs, but the battalion commander dismissed them saying he did not care. He was a tanker and a damn good one. That was all he cared about. (6) Several weeks later the battalion commander's driver provoked a Corporal by pushing him and calling him a racial slur. The Corporal reached in a flash, grabbed a broom stick and beat up the driver. Wrongful force demands strong punishment, even with a good Soldier, so the applicant initiated a Special Court-Martial against the Corporal. (7) Despite the Corporal's actions, the applicant felt the extenuating circumstances of the situation warranted further consideration. He petitioned the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority to allow a no confinement plea but did not succeed. He advised the battalion commander of his intention before going to the brigade commander. The battalion commander was adamant against it and screamed at the applicant he wanted the Corporal hung from the highest cross. The applicant advised the battalion commander he had no other choice morally and would proceed with his petition to the brigade command, but would acknowledge the battalion commander's protest. In the end the Corporal was sent to Fort Leavenworth with a Dishonorable Discharge and unable to return to military service. (8) The Army lost a super Soldier who made a dumb and costly mistake by losing his temper. As a Corporal he was a better noncommissioned officer than many of the sergeant and staff sergeants. He was recognized as such by most senior noncommissioned officers and many officers. A number of senior noncommissioned officers testified on his behalf but not a single officer outside the applicant's executive officer and himself would testify. His peers told him he was right, the corporal was a super Soldier who was going to be thrown down the river but the applicant should not throw away his career for the Soldier. The applicant has weighed his decision many times throughout the years and would do it again 100 times over. (9) The applicant strongly objected to the Battalion Commander's comments "worked hard at improving Soldier morale and discipline - only partially successful" and the Brigade Commander's comments "however, discipline/law and order were not maintained to the same high standards." The applicant had the highest Uniform Code of Military Justice and Administrative Separation actions within the battalion and brigade largely because of his self-initiated drug busts. In the end, his network of bad-turned good Soldiers provided him the inside story on drug dealers and transactions, which helped him win the war on drugs. Many of his Soldiers thanked him for his actions one of whom turned his life around and thanked the applicant from Leavenworth Confinement Facility and was able to reenter the Army. (10) Given the fact that he had many documented accomplishments in command, the battalion commander had to pull at straws to distort the applicant's OER. The most obvious of those was on the OER where the battalion commander denounces him to a number two rating, which is the only OER in his career that denounces his physical fitness. All of his OERs have him rated as number one. He maxed his physical fitness test every time and ran forward and backwards with his company daily. The applicant had very direct exposure to the brigade commander and was sure his senior rater evaluation followed the lead of the battalion commander. (11) The final issue regarding being non-selected for promotion to LTC was his OER that covered his last 10 months as the Material Management Officer for the Director of Logistics in Korea. His rater, with the help of a friend, purposely delayed his OER until after his senior rater had departed for his next assignment so as to enable his rater evaluation to fly without challenge/rebuke from a senior rater. The applicant is sure his senior rater would have challenged his rater's comments on his OER and would have given him a strong senior rater evaluation. It was his senior rater's endorsement months earlier that secured his assignment to the Joint Staff where he served with distinction earning the Joint Service Achievement Meal and the Department of Defense Meritorious Service Medal and a public commendation by the Joint Staff General. (12) At the applicant's request, his rater promised him a close-out Change of Senior Rater OER with his senior rater prior to his departure. He completed his OER support form in early June and again on 25 June after his rater claimed he had lost it. His rater sat on it and had one excuse after another until the senior rater had departed. His rater then established the new Brigade Commander as his senior rater, who wasn't eligible to rate him until he had 90 days. His rater then nicely, not abusively slammed him on his OER without the scrutiny of a senior rater review. (13) The applicant's rater exercised a unique art of leadership. He would rub it in the applicant's face that he was a non-select for resident CGSC even as he was working late evenings and weekends to complete CGSC by correspondence. During staff meetings his rater would flick nose buggers at those attending the meetings. He over loaded the applicant with impossible deadlines so he harass him. (14) The applicant was not the only who suffered under the applicant's rater. A Chief Warrant Officer retired as a Chief Warrant Officer Three rather than accept a return assignment to work for his rater. Another Warrant Officer took an early retirement at 23 years to escape the rater. (15) Many of the officers saw the applicant's rater as professionally inept and morally corrupt. He was pot-bellied overweight and lacked any military bearing as an officer. He lied to the command group and others and would leave the applicant hanging to attend key/problematic Command and Staff Meetings because he had last minute emergencies. He openly flirted with his Korean secretary, subsequently leaving his wife to marry her. (16) There were a number of accomplishments the rater should have included on the applicant's OER. He successfully passed the 1985 Command and Logistics Review Inspection. He had significant success in support of Foal Eagle and Team Spirit 85. He achieved major success in the professional development of his subordinates. He was active in community support of local orphanages. He developed an automation plan update, and he was the honor graduate of CGSC. (17) The applicant admits he was administratively late on several enlisted evaluation reports. He was not late to Headquarters, Department of the Army. He considered awards, OERs and enlisted evaluation reports as his top priorities. He took each one seriously and gave each his best effort, never copping out for cut and paste. (18) He knows he should have appealed the unjust OERs earlier, but he decided otherwise at the time due to the reluctance of his peers to commit their verbal support in writing. Due to the circumstances surrounding his two OERs in question, many were hesitant to risk their careers to stand up on his behalf. Until 2005, he was unaware there was an ABCMR to address and correct issues within one's personnel record. Shortly after hearing of the option to go to the Board, he was deployed to Iraq where he worked 12 to 15 hour days 7 days a week with no time or energy for personal issues. In July 2009 he was Medevac'd out of Iraq due to a broken knee and herniated disc in his neck sustained on the job. After two operations, heavy medication and acupuncture treatments in Germany, he had time to resume his efforts to appeal his case to the ABCMR. (19) He had a significant and rewarding career, but he would gladly have served beyond his 20 years if it had been possible. His goal was to be a Colonel but instead was forced to retire as a MAJ. He closed his case with the letters of support from the Generals, Colonels, Warrant Officers, noncommissioned officer, and Senior Department of Defense Civilians who trusted in his leadership and recommended his promotion. y. Letters of support, which state, in pertinent part: (1) A Brigadier General (BG) (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 25 March 2014 which states he strongly supports correction to reflect the applicant's promotion to LTC. His performance as a company commander came to the BG's attention several times with commendable inspections. The most impressive was his fight against drug use and abuse. The applicant demonstrated the courage, tenacity, and determined leadership needed in commanders (Page 228 of 349). (2) A Sergeant Major (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 1 April 2005 which state it gave him great pleasure to provide a positive letter of recommendation for the applicant. The applicant, as a CPT, commanded over 171 enlisted Soldiers and Officers. He was given a more than difficult task of trying to command a combat efficient/effective support unit while battling a serious drug problem. The applicant began his mission of ridding the company of a serious drug problem, which was a courageous act of professionalism, selflessness, and dedication to duty. The author recommended the applicant for advancement to the rank of LTC (page 229 of 349). (3) A Major General (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 25 March 2014 which states, he requests an apparent injustice be corrected, specifically he requested the Board correct the military rank of the applicant from MAJ to LTC. The OERs he rendered for the applicant on his service are testimony to the applicant's outstanding performance and potential. His observations were reinforced by others who the privilege of benefiting from his contributions and rated his as an outstanding performer with much potential. The applicant should have been selected to LTC at his first opportunity (page 230 of 349). (4) G C submitted a letter, dated 21 April 2014 which states he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his rank from MAJ to LTC. The applicant was an outstanding company commander one of the best he'd ever known. He would serve with the applicant again anytime and under any circumstance. He cannot believe the applicant was not promoted to LTC (page 231 of 349). (5) A First Sergeant (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 1 April 2014 which states, he had the honor and privilege of serving with the applicant from 1977 to 1980. The applicant was one of the most professional officer he had served with during his 24 years career. He stood shoulders above his peers. The author would serve with the applicant again (page 232 of 349). z. An OER Support Form dated 16 June 1980. aa. An OER as a CPT from 1 November 1979 through 9 June 1980, which shows: * on too many occasions the applicant displayed unsound judgment in dealing with Uniform Code of Military Justice cases * after initiating action, he destroyed the government's case through his testimony/indorsements * he usually exceeded requirements * promote with contemporaries * he was evaluated as center of mass * he was not recommended for further command bb. An OER as a CPT from 12 July 1980 through 11 July 1981, which shows: * the applicant always exceeded requirements * he should be promoted ahead of contemporaries * stands in the top one percent of CPTs in the Army * mark for battalion command as soon as possible * he was rated above center mass cc. A letter of Appreciation from the Professor of Military Science, Creighton University, dated 9 July 1982, which commends the applicant for his hard work, patience, loyal support, and selfless commitment to the profession of arms. He would gladly serve with the applicant anytime, anyplace, and would want him on his flank in a fight. dd. An OER as a CPT from 12 July 1981 through 11 July 1982, which shows: * the applicant always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * give him a command * he should be promoted now * he was rated above center mass ee. An OER as a CPT from 12 July 1982 through 15 May 1983, which shows: * the applicant usually exceeds requirements * promote with contemporaries * should be selected for command * he was rated above center mass ff. A Certificate of Training from The Air Assault School, dated 3 August 1982. gg. Orders 73-100, published by US Army Military Personnel Center, dated 1 July 1983 promoting the applicant to MAJ effective 1 August 1983. hh. An OER as a MAJ from 27 August 1983 through 26 August 1984, which shows: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * he should be promoted to LTC as soon as possible * he definitely demonstrated potential for promotion to LTC * he was rated above center mass ii. a CGSC Graduation Diploma, dated 19 June 1985. jj. A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 19 June 1985 showing he completed the CGSC and was presented a diploma. He exceeded the course standards and was an honor graduate. kk. An OER as a MAJ from 27 August 1984 through 20 June 1985, which shows: * usually exceeded requirements * promote with contemporaries * his senior rater was unable to evaluate the rated officer because he did not have the required number of days as his senior rater to rate the applicant ll. Letters of support, which state in pertinent part: (1) Master Sergeant (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 25 March 2014 which states, he worked with the applicant when he was the Chief, Logistics Operations. The applicant worked long hours to keep up with his rater's short suspense dates. He was consistently praised by senior leadership for his outstanding performance. He was not treated fairly by his rater. The author feels the applicant's rater wanted him to fail but he consistently managed to succeed with every task to meet the mission. For some reason the applicant's rater didn't like this superior MAJ. The author would work for and follow the applicant into combat any day. He deserved to be promoted to LTC and had the potential to be an outstanding COL (page 253 of 349). (2) A Master Sergeant (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 18 March 2013 which states he worked several times with the applicant once in Korea and again in Iraq. It was a pleasure working with the applicant. He made a person feel they worked with him, not for him. When in Korea, the applicant was given short suspense dates from his rater with heavy workload. He completed the jobs with little or no complaints. The applicant was not liked by his senior rater, the author believes it was jealously. The applicant's work ethics and attention to details far exceeded that of his rater. He should have been promoted to LTC long before his retirement (page 254 of 349). (3) A Chief Warrant Officer Four (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 15 April 2014 which states he worked with the applicant as the Chief, Supply Division in Korea. The author retired early because the applicant's rater was pure hell to work for. The senior rater treated the applicant and senior noncommissioned officers with little to no respect. In his years of service the author never met a field grade officer with less professionalism or logistics knowledge than the applicant's senior rater. The applicant always provided the real leadership to the operating divisions during this time and was instrumental in their overall accomplishments. The author considered the applicant one of the best officer he ever work for in his he ever work for in his over 44 years of government service. He recommends immediate correction of the applicant's records and promotion to LTC (page 255 of 349). (4) A Chief Warrant Officer Three (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 25 March 2014, which states, he has the greatest respect for and confidence in the applicant's abilities and leadership in any situation. He requested the Board made the correction to his rank immediately. The applicant completed many high priority, short fuse projects, usually ahead of deadlines. He can think of no one in the brigade who would challenge the applicant's integrity, his accomplishments or his willingness to go above and beyond. The author was on the Chief Warrant Officer Four promotion list when he was up for reassignment. His previous experience with the applicant's rater lack of professionalism were such he retired as a Chief Warrant Officer Three rather than take the promotion and the hand-picked assignment to be under the rater's leadership. What was done to the applicant was wrong and needs to be corrected now. mm. An OER as a MAJ from 21 June 1985 through 20 June 1986, which states: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * the applicant was performing as a LTC * promote early and give him a command * he was rated above center mass nn. An OER as a MAJ from 21 June 1986 through 4 February 1987, which states: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * outstanding potential * the applicant had general officer potential * promote now and give him tactical signal battalion command * he was rated above center mass oo. Letters of support, which state in pertinent part: (1) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 17 April 2005, which states it his recommendation for the applicant to be promoted to LTC now. When working with the applicant, he stood head and shoulders above the LTCs working with the author. The applicant was awarded the Joint Service Achievement Medal and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for his efforts briefing the United Nations Command and Commander. The author's comments on his OER stated the applicant had the ability to focus his attention on actions which mattered. He had the foresight and grasp of the impacts, interactions and implications of seemingly non-associated actions. That the applicant has not been promoted to LTC is an injustice to the applicant and a remarkable loss to the Army. The applicant is an officer of integrity, with courage to support his convictions, and a model of military bearing and physical condition. The author it honored to fully support his appeal to correct his rank to LTC (page 261 of 349). (2) A letter from the Office of the Commander, dated 14 June 2005 which states the author fully supports the applicant's appeal to the ABCMR to correct his rank to LTC. He has the utmost respect and confidence in his leadership abilities and would serve with again under any circumstances. Promote him now to LTC. The author has known the applicant for over 20 years and served together in Korea. The author was a junior CPT and the applicant was one of his mentors. It is absolutely inconceivable to the author that he wasn't promoted to LTC. The author read the applicant’s OERs and awards and is even more impressed after reading through what he accomplished and what senior officers have to say of him (page 262 of 349). (3) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 15 May 2014, which states he recommends the applicant be promoted to LTC. He recently learned the applicant retired as a MAJ. He was shocked. The author interacted daily with the applicant while assigned in Korea in the mid-1980s. The applicant impressed the author with his intellect, his unrelenting work ethic, his attention to detail and his love of the Army. He was convinced at the time the applicant would at least be a LTC one day. His opinion has not changed. Promote the applicant immediately (page 263 of 349). pp. An OER when the applicant was a MAJ from 5 February 1987 through 30 July 1987, which shows: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * promote immediately, clearly ahead of peers * select for battalion commander * he was rated above center of mass qq. An OER when he was a MAJ from 30 July 1987 through 29 July 1988, which states: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * promote to LTC now * select for command * he was rated above center mass rr. An OER when he was a MAJ from 29 July 1988 through 22 June 1989, which shows: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * promote to LTC now * the applicant was a one-time non-select for LTC * it was absolutely incomprehensible why the applicant was not picked up for promotion. * he was rated above center mass ss. An OER when he was a MAJ from 23 June 1989 through 22 June 1990, which shows: * always exceeded requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * select for LTC now * assign to the Army's tough positions -- he will deliver * he was rated above center mass tt. An OER when he was a MAJ from 23 June 1990 through 25 April 1991, which shows: * always exceeded the requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * promote the applicant immediately * he was an outstanding officer * strongly recommend the applicant be selected for promotion to LTC now * he was rated above center mass uu. An OER when he was a MAJ from 26 April 1991 through 29 February 1992 which shows: * always exceeded the requirements * promote ahead of contemporaries * should be promoted to LTC now and select for command * should be a LTC today * recall to active duty as a LTC * he was rated above center of mass vv. A letter of support from a Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 24 March 2014, which states, the letter is to support the applicant's appeal to correct his retired grade to LTC. He was personally aware of the applicant's duty performance in an extremely difficult and important job. He was fully deserving of the author's highest rating for his performance. The author reviewed the OERs covering the applicant's service before he knew him. He is convinced the applicant deserves to be promoted to LTC. The two earlier adverse OERs which led to his pass over, were clearly inconsistent with his performance before and after. The author supports the applicant's case and encourages the Board to approve his promotion to the retired grade of LTC (page 276 of 349). ww. A Certificate of Signal Corps (Regimental) Affiliation, dated 31 May 1988. xx. Letters of support which state in pertinent part: (1) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 19 April 2014, which states, it was his privilege to write the letter on behalf of the applicant to update his records to the rank of LTC. He personally observed and worked with the applicant on numerous supply chain management issues. He was an industrious, highly motivated senior logistician fully capable of performing his logistics responsibility functions in a remarkable manner. The applicant possesses the qualities of honesty, integrity, loyalty, and has all the leadership traits of a LTC. The author highly recommended the applicant's military records reflect the rank of LTC (page 278 of 349) (2) A Command Sergeant Major submitted a letter, dated 19 September 2005, which states, he was stationed with the applicant in Germany in the mid-80s. The applicant was the Brigade S-4 Officer. The applicant was the third S-4 Officer the author worked with and he out performed his predecessors. The brigade was recognized by higher headquarters for its excellence in supply discipline, maintenance, and budge controls. The applicant deserves to be a LTC more than any Officer the author ever served under. It would be a great disservice to not recognize the applicant for the outstanding job he did (page 279 of 349). (3) J N submitted a letter, dated 5 April 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to the ABCMR to correct his rank to LTC. He was the applicant's immediate superior in the 21st TAACOM. The author read all the arguments supporting the applicant's retirement. He also reviewed his last 10 OERs. In hindsight, the applicant should have appealed his 1980 and 1985 OERs which led to his non-selection, but the applicant continued to perform. The applicant's selfless and extended service in Iraq in 2005 and 2009 should be another factor the Board should take into consideration. As a retired military officer and civilian executive, the author feels the Army should have promoted the applicant to LTC and let him retire as one (page 280 of 349). (4) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 21 April 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his record to promote him to LTC. The applicant was one of the most professional officers/civilians the author served with during his 30 year Army career. The applicant stood head and shoulders above his peers as recognized by his many awards/commendations and general officer letters of support. The author would serve with the applicant again under any circumstances and would fight to have him on his team. The applicant's analytical skills alone warrant promotion to LTC. It is inconceivable to the author that he was not promoted to LTC during his military career. He asks the Board to correct his record and promote him to LTC immediately (page 281 of 349). (5) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 18 March 2014, which states, he fully supports and strongly recommends the applicant's appeal to the ABCMR to correct his retirement rank to LTC. He served with the applicant in Germany from June 1992 through November 1993. The applicant had the confidence of the author and the commanding general they worked for. The commanding general would request the applicant by name to work demanding projects normally given to a more senior officer. The author reviewed the applicant's military record and combined with his personal observation of his outstanding performance of duty, it was his strong professional opinion that correcting the applicant's retirement rank to LTC is not only appropriate but is commensurate with his overall record of performance of taking on the tough jobs and doing them well (page 282 of 349). (6) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 25 March 2014, which states, the letter unequivocally supports the promotion of the applicant to LTC at the earliest possible date. In his career, he never served with a more competent and dedicated officer. He strongly recommends correction of the applicant's service record and immediate promotion to LTC. He is a man and officer who exemplifies the swords, "Duty, Honor, Country" (page 283 of 349). (7) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 18 March 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his rank to LTC. As the author stated when the applicant worked for him, "he has tremendous potential and is capable of serving at any level with the Army and achieving outstanding results. Promote immediately." Those words were written over 20 years ago when the applicant was assigned to the Plans and Operations Division. The applicant's duty performance warranted his selection and promotion to LTC; however, while the promotion did not occur, the applicant continued to Soldier as a truly exemplary officer and in most instances was assigned responsibilities associated with the LTC rank. Based on his performance, the author believes promotion to LTC is warranted and deserving (page 284 of 354). (8) A Colonel (Retired submitted a letter, dated 22 March 2014, which states, after 23 years, the author still remembers the exceptional job the applicant did as a member of his Logistics Plans staff. His senior rater comments in 1991 were a sincere and honest assessment of the applicant's performance and potential. He should have been promoted to the rank of LTC then and deserves the correction of non-selection now (page 285 of 349). yy. A letter of appreciation from his battalion commander, dated 8 May 1991, which states he wanted to express his thanks for the applicant's tremendous efforts and selfless service to the author, the Soldiers and the command. The applicant achieved great things and played a substantial role in Desert Shield/Storm and in shaping the future of the Army in Europe. The applicant never received the recognition he truly deserved and he hoped the letter work make up for some of that. zz. A picture of the applicant receiving an award. aaa. A Certification of Employment signed by the Supervisory Personnel Staffing Specialist, dated 25 February 1992 stating the applicant would be employed as a Department of Army Civilian effective 2 March 1992. bbb. A Lieutenant General (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 21 April 2014, which states he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his retired rank from MAJ to LTC. He was the commanding general in Europe from August 1993 through August 1995. The applicant served as a Manpower Analyst and briefed the author on numerous occasions. His presentation skills were among the best of their best. The leadership and analytical skills the applicant demonstrated under the author's command did not blossom overnight. They were invariably honed over years of exceptional service as a Lieutenant, CPT, and MAJ. The author asks the Board to please correct his records and promote him now to LTC (page 289 of 349). ccc. A Civilian Award Certificate. ddd. A Certificate for the Commander's Award for Civilian Service, dated 13 August 1996. eee. Letters of support that state, in pertinent part: (1) A letter from R V , Ph.D., which states he writes the Board the letter in support of the applicant's petition to the ABCMR. The applicant was a student in the author's classroom at the Army Management Staff College and the author served as his personal advisor and primary rater during the four month period of study. His experience with the applicant during his course of study was extremely positive. The applicant demonstrated academic performance and leadership- management skills were second to none. The author unequivocally supports the applicant's petition to the ABCMR to correct his retirement rank from MAJ to LTC (page 292 of 349). (2) A Lieutenant General (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 1 April 2014, which states the applicant was in his command from 1992 to the end of 1993 in Germany. He remembers the applicant well and his outstanding performance of duty. The applicant's file is documented with many awards received over his years on active duty. Serious consideration needs to be given to his petition for promotion to LTC for his retirement. Probably most impressive was the applicant's call to duty to serve in Iraq when he didn't have to (page 293 of 349). (3) The Senior Executive Service Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, G-8 submitted a letter, dated 25 March 2014, which states he was privileged to write in support of the applicant's efforts to have is military rank corrected. The applicant served under the author's leadership from 1995 through 1996 as a Manpower Analyst. During that time, he performed his duties in an exceptional manner. The author can personally attest to his intelligence, fortitude, and professionalism. The author fully supports the applicant's efforts to have his military rank corrected (page 294 of 349). (4) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 24 April 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his retired rank from MAJ to LTC. He worked with the applicant in the Executive Logistics Cell. The applicant's performance was superb in all aspects. He had the confidence and respect of all the Colonel Commanders, and regularly presented findings and conclusions to the Command Group. The author had the greatest respect for and confidence in the applicant's abilities and leadership in all situations. He supports the consideration for the applicant's immediate promotion to LTC (page 295 of 349). (5) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 19 March 2014, which states, he strongly and without reservation supports the applicant's appeal to correct his rank to LTC. While working with the applicant, his level of performance and disciplined approach to business could not have been bloomed overnight. It only could have been developed and honed over years of dedicated service. He would gladly work with or for the applicant at any time (page 296 of 349). (6) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 16 March 2014, which states he strong supports the applicant's appeal for correction of his military records to the grade of LTC. He based his recommendation on his professional relationship with the applicant while working with him from 1992 through 1995. He worked with and observed the applicant's exceptional competence and uncanny ability to solve problems across multiple challenging issues. He reviewed the OERs and awards and letter of commendation the applicant received. They are consistent with the exemplary professionalism he demonstrated while working with the author. The applicant's consistent high level of performance over his entire career warrants his promotion to LTC (page 297 of 349). (7) A LTC (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 12 March 2014, which states, he supports the applicant's appeal to the ABCMR to correct his rank to LTC. They served together from June 1992 to June 1994. The author had the opportunity to observe the applicant's work on a daily basis. The applicant served with distinction, continually working in a position that would have been normally filled by a LTC. Knowing the applicant and reading through his OERs, letters, and awards, he cannot understand why the applicant wasn't promoted to LTC (page 298 of 349). (8) A LTC (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 20 March 2014, which states, he strongly supports the correction of the applicant's record to reflect promotion to LTC. He served with the applicant for 3 years in the early 1990s in Germany and had daily interaction with him. From mid-1992 through mid-1994, he served as the applicant's immediate supervisor and rated him as an outstanding performer. The applicant had the knowledge, skills, and abilities commensurate with the rank of LTC. The applicant demonstrated the highest qualities of loyalty, dedication and diligence during the years they worked together. His leadership skills impressed the author as among the best he observed in his 25 year Active Duty Career. The author has no doubt the applicant deserves to have retired as a LTC and fully supports correcting his record to reflect his promotion. If he served on the Board, he would vote to promote the applicant without reservation (page 299 of 349). (9) A letter from a retired civilian employee, dated 20 April 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his rank to LTC. He had the opportunity to observe hundreds of Field Grade Officer in his career and is comfortable saying the applicant easily ranked among the top 15 percent of that group. He had frequent contact with the applicant from 1991 to 1996. The applicant was always the consummate professional, operating at levels above his grade. The applicant's duty performance clearly surpassed that of his peers and many of the LTCs the author served with. He should have been promoted before his retirement. He asks the Board favorably consider the input provided and correct his rank to LTC (page 300 of 349). (10) A Brigadier General (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 24 February 2014, which states, after the author reviewed the material presented to him by the applicant he endorsed his position at hand before the ABCMR. He recommends the applicant's retired rank be corrected from MAJ to LTC (page 301 of 349). (11) A Major General submitted a letter, dated 27 March 2014, which states, he strongly recommends correction of the applicant's rank to LTC. The applicant's years of loyal service in and out of the uniform coupled with his broad communication skills ensured the author was prepared to handle international engagements with precision. The applicant continued to excel as a Department of Defense contractor and in other critical challenging assignments supporting the Army. Now, he is one of the toughest fights yet, correcting career decisions that impacted his advancement to LTC 30 years ago. The author is confident after reviewing the applicant's summary of arguments the facts will prevail. The applicant is as best as they come, he is a motivated leader and professional Soldier with drive for excellence, and strong Army Values. His offers the Board his strongest recommendation for the applicant's consideration to LTC. He would be proud to serve with the applicant again, anytime, and anywhere (page 302 of 349). (12) A Colonel (Retired) submitted a letter, dated 29 April 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his rank to LTC. The applicant's service was nothing less than exemplary as noted in his official military record. The applicant was compelled to serve our nation and volunteered for repetitive deployments to Iraq. The author only has the highest praise for the applicant's commitment to his leadership. While working with the author, the applicant performed at the LTC level with ease. He implores the Board to consider promoting him to the rank of LTC so he receives the recognition he deserves (page 303 of 349). (13) A Colonel submitted a letter, dated 11 October 2005, which states, the applicant worked under the author's command as the Deputy Brigade S-3 from 7 June 2005 to 13 October 2005. He was the go to guy for General Officer Briefings and correspondence. The applicant delivered peak performance in all areas and had his highest recommendation. The applicant was a professional in every respect, and brought keen analytical skill and exceptional writing abilities. He would welcome the applicant back to work for him again in any operation capacity. The applicant would be a significant value-added asset to any organization (page 304 of 349). (14) A letter of recommendation for future Department of the Army Employment concerning the applicant signed by a Colonel, dated 12 December 2006, which states the applicant was an exceptional employee. He is acknowledged by all as a gifted logistician with mission accomplishment as his top priority. The applicant was well respected by his subordinates and superiors as a leader and for getting the job done. The author highly recommended the applicant for positions of increased responsibilities in the Federal System. He would higher the applicant immediately (page 306 of 349). (15) A letter from a Colonel, dated 10 July 2007, which states, the applicant was leaving the author's command and his loss would be felt. The applicant excelled in every position and task given him. His performance in all tasks was commendable. The applicant demonstrated keen insight for briefings, correspondence and discussions with General officer. The author strongly endorsed the applicant for Federal Civil Service. The author couldn't speak highly enough of the applicant. He had the maturity, leadership, and analytical skills of a seasoned officer or program manager. Given the opportunity, the author would hire the applicant as a senior GS-14/15 immediately (page 307 of 349). (16) A letter from a Colonel (Retired), dated 12 May 2014, which states he strongly endorses the applicant's appeal to the ABCMR to correct his retirement rank to LTC. The applicant's record of outstanding performance of duty and continued support to the US National objectives, demonstrates he is an individual of unfailing courage and has the utmost respect for the accomplishment of mission objectives in support of his leadership and the goals of the organization. He is the quality individual and logistician and the author believes the Board's review will result in the long overdue rectification, promoting him to the rank of LTC based on the merits (page 308 of 349). (17) A letter from a Colonel (Retired), dated 26 March 2014, which states, the applicant lives by the motto of Duty, Honor, and Country. While working with the applicant, the author learned he could trust him with his life and he knew the applicant would put his life on the line for him, the applicant had his back. The author learned to know and respect the applicant's core values, which included perfection and continuous selfless service as he continuously demonstrated during their service together. The author found it odd the applicant retired from Active Duty only as a MAJ. He implores the Board to look at the applicant's entire career and correct his record as he most certainly should have been selected for LTC and probably beyond (page 309 of 349). (18) An unsigned letter, dated 23 April 2014, which states, the author strongly recommends the Board approve the applicant's appeal and correct his rank to LTC. The applicant demonstrated exceptional knowledge of military logistics processes when tasked to conduct a detailed program study and serve as project manager for renovation of the mechanized equipment of the Iraqi Army. While earlier evaluations failed to accurately assess the applicant's potential to perform at a higher grade, his outstanding post retirement performance clearly proves those evaluations to be wrong (page 310 of 349). (19) A letter from a Colonel (Retired), dated 24 March 2014, which states, the letter reflects the author's unqualified recommendation the applicant be promoted to the rank of LTC. The applicant's job performance while working with the author was outstanding and he performed at or above the rank of LTC in every aspect of his job. The author highly recommends the Applicant's request for promotion to LTC be approved unanimously by the Board. He served honorably and exemplified the true meaning of being a Soldier and a leader (page 311 of 349). (20) A letter from a LTC (Retired), dated 17 March 2014, which states, he strongly supports the applicant's appeal to the Board to amend his rank to LTC. The author has the utmost respect and confidence in the applicant's leadership and fidelity and would proudly serve with him again in any respect. The applicant was an outstanding leader and staff officer. The applicant was well respected by the Brigadier General and Colonels they worked with. The applicant is an excellent leader and the author fully supports his request to correct his rank to LTC (page 312 of 349). (21) A letter from a LTC of the US Air Force, dated 27 March 2014, which states he is honored to provide a letter on behalf of the applicant. He served with the applicant from 2008 to 2009. The applicant impressed him from the moment he met him. He stood head and shoulders above any other person in his unit in terms of professionalism, productivity, maturity, and quality of work produced. The applicant performed at a level much higher than his assigned position. The author has no reason to believe the applicant performed any differently on active duty than he did as a civilian in Iraq. It is beyond his comprehension that the applicant was not promoted to LTC. He urges the Board members to rectify this mistake and properly recognize the applicant (page 313 of 349). (22) A letter from a Retired Commander of the US Navy, dated 30 March 2014, which states, he strongly recommends the applicant be promoted to LTC at the earliest opportunity. The applicant's job performance while working with the author was nothing short of brilliant. He never failed to deliver. Efficiency reports do not capture the difficulty of the applicant's assignments, the political, military, and social importance of his work, his mentoring of officers, the respect shown by his peers and command noncommissioned officers, and other knowledge vital to battlefield dominance. The author believes the Board can agree an injustice was done to the applicant and his promotion to the rank of LTC is long overdue. (23) A letter from a GS-14 Foreign Military Sales Task Force Analyst, which states, he whole-heartedly and unequivocally personally vouches for the applicant's integrity, professionalism, and solid work ethic. He fully supports the applicant's appeal to the Board to correct his retired rank from MAJ to LTC. He endorses the applicant as one of the most competent and professional staff officer and leader he knew in his 40 years of service. The applicant stands above the crowd in every way as a leader (page 316 of 349). (24) A letter from a Colonel (Retired), dated 23 April 2014, which states he commits his full support for the promotion of the applicant to the retired rank of LTC. The applicant was noted for his diligence, intellectual competence, and ability to operate successfully in ever changing environments. He had no doubt the applicant would serve successfully as he increased in rank to senior levels (page 317 of 349). (25) A letter from a LTC (Retired), dated 11 April 2014, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his record to promote him to LTC. The author had over 25 years of service as Enlisted and Officer. The applicant was and is still an exemplary leader whose entire being centers around Duty, Honor, Country. It is absolutely inconceivable to the author as to why the applicant was passed over to LTC. He urges the Board to correct tis mistake and promote him to LTC immediately (page 318 of 349). (26) A letter from M D , dated 23 March 2014, which states, he unconditionally supports the applicant's appeal to the Board to correct his rank to LTC. The author remembered the applicant as an extremely high quality, innovative, and proactive Army Officer who provided outstanding support to their battalion, staff, and to the author. Without any reservation, the author would cite the applicant as the single individual at a higher headquarters level that provided him with the greatest degree of support throughout his career (page 319 of 349). (27) A letter from a MAJ, dated 19 April 2005, which states, the author knew the applicant for over 4 years while stationed in Germany. The applicant constantly displayed a strong, exemplary work ethic and had strong moral character. The author had profound confidence in his leadership abilities and would service with him under any circumstances. He enthusiastically recommended the Board correct the applicant's records to reflect the rank of LTC (page 320 of 349). (28) A letter from a MAJ, dated 1 May 2005, which states, he respectfully requests the Board review the applicant's file for promotion to LTC. The applicant still serves our country with vigor and honor. The author personally has great respect for him as a leader and servicemember. By reviewing the applicant's personnel file, the author found the applicant received mostly top notch ratings by a myriad of senior raters, which confirms his belief other agree with his assessment of the applicant's character. The applicant was forced to retire from the Army in 1992. He continued to support the troops the VFW, American Legion and the Military Officers Association of America. The author recommends the Board promote the applicant to LTC and bring him back on active duty (page 321 of 349). (29) A letter from a promotable CPT, dated 20 May 2005, which states, he fully supports the applicant's appeal to correct his rank to LTC. It is his sincere hope the Board will correct the injustice of not promoting the applicant. The author believes if given the opportunity, the applicant would have touched many more lives and would have been a wonderful caring battalion commander or higher (page 322 of 349). (30) A letter from a retired Lieutenant from the US Navy, dated 5 April 2005, which states, he strongly supports the applicant's appeal to the Board to correct his rank to LTC. The author has the utmost respect and confidence in the applicant's leadership abilities. He would serve with him, or under his command, under any circumstances. Correct the injustice. Promote him to LTC now (page 323 of 349). (31) A letter from a Chief Warrant Officer Three (Retired), dated 27 March 2014, which states, the letter gives him the unqualified recommendation that the applicant be promoted to LTC now. The applicant lives the Army values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Integrity, and Personal Courage. The author is honored to have met and worked under the applicant and whole heartedly supports his appeal to correct his rank to LTC (page 324 of 349). (32) A letter from the Director QA/QI, 266th Finance Command, dated 1 April 2005, which states, in his over thirty years of faithful service in the United States Army, the applicant stands among the best in the character department. The applicant should be a LTC now. If called to service of this great country, the author would be proud to service with the applicant today at any time, any place, or anywhere (page 325 of 349). (33) A letter from a Sergeant First Class (Retired), dated 25 March 2005, which states, he fully supports the applicant's petition to the Board to correct his rank to LTC. He has the utmost respect and confidence in the applicant's leadership abilities and would serve with him under any circumstances. Promote him to LTC now. He cannot understand why the applicant wasn't promoted to LTC (page 326 of 349). (34) A letter from a Staff Sergeant (Retired), dated 2 April 2005, which states, he strongly supports the applicant's appeal to the Board to correct his rank to LTC. He has read the applicant's OERs and awards and was even more impressed after reading through what the applicant has accomplished and what other Senior Officers have to say about him. He asks the Board to read the letters of support or call them in to testify before the Board. Promote the applicant to LTC now (page 327 of 349). fff. A DA Form 1059-2 (Senior Service College Academic Evaluation Report), dated 15 May 1996, which shows the applicant completed the Army sustaining Base Leadership and Management course at the Army Management Staff College. ggg. A DA Form 5398 (Civilian Performance Rating) from 2 March 1992 through 11 June 1992, which shows the summary of his rating level was exceptional. hhh. A DA Form 5398 from 2 March 1992 through 31 January 1993, which shows the summary of his rating level was exceptional. iii. A DA Form 5398 from 1 February 1993 through 31 October 1993, which shows the summary of his rating level was exceptional. jjj. A DA Form 7222 (Senior System Civilian Evaluation Report) from 1 November 1993 through 15 July 1994, which shows his performance for this period was excellent. kkk. A DA Form 7222 from 1 November 1994 through 31 October 1995, which shows his performance for this period was excellent. lll. A DA Form 7222 from 1 October 1995 through 15 July 1996, which shows his performance for this period was excellent. mmm. A Defense Meritorious Service Medal Certificate, dated 23 January 1987. nnn. In the processing of the previous ABCMR case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 1 December 2015, from the Chief, Officer Promotions, US Army Human Resources Command. The advisory opined the applicant's request for promotion to LTC did not have merit. The exact reasons for the applicant's non-selection for promotion are unknown because of statutory requirements. The non-selection of the officer did not mean he was not a quality officer, but it was indicative of the competitive nature of the promotion system. A copy of the complete advisory opinion has been provided to the Board for their review and consideration (page 346 of 349). ooo. The applicant's counsel was provided a copy of this advisory opinion on 21 December 2015, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. The counsel replied on behalf of the applicant as follows: (1) The advisory official suggested the reason for the applicant's non-selection to LTC could not be known due to statutory requirements that prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone outside of the promotion board in question. The applicant's submission to the Board provided sufficient documentation to establish him as being one of the Army top officers. Despite high praise in his evaluation and exceptional reviews, the applicant was twice non-selection for promotion. That he was non-selected can be attributed to the only grey areas on his otherwise flawless military record. (2) The applicant provided the Board documentation demonstrating his exceptional military career but also documentation to show the OERs in question were unfair and not reflective of his actual performance. It is clear the two OERS are biased and not reflective of the applicant's performance, which resulted in him being twice non- selected for promotion. (3) The advisory official suggested the applicant appeal the OERs with Human Resources Command (HRC). The advisory official failed to take into account the amount of time that has passed since the applicant's OERs were issued. The OERs in question predate HRC's jurisdiction to have the negative OERs removed. (4) The Board must adjudicate the applicant's request based on its claim and not on timeliness. The applicant explained why the three year statute of limitation should be waived. 4. The applicant provided the following information in support of his requests: a. A rebuttal to his OER from 1 November 1979 through 9 June 1980, which states: (1) He was evaluated by a new Battalion Commander and a new Brigade Commander. Compare this OER with the preceding OER of 11 months in command or any of his other OERs. The root issue in the OER stems from his refusal to submit to his Battalion Commander in what he perceived was a racial injustice to one of his Soldiers and his active war on drugs. (2) The applicant reiterates war on drugs when he was the company commander and the assault by one of his Soldiers which lead to a court-martial and finally to the OER in question. b. The OER Support Form for the OER and the OER in question. c. OERs which were provided in his previous ABCMR case. d. The letters of recommendation provided in his previous ABCMR case. e. A rebuttal to his OER from 27 August 1984 through 20 June 1985, which reiterates the applicant's explanation regarding the OER and the feeling that his rater purposefully delayed the OER so there was no one to rebuff the rating. f. The applicant's CGSC Academic Report and certificate. g. A Directorate of Logistics Staff Chart showing the applicant as the Maintenance Management Officer. 5. See REFERENCES listed below. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and an advisory opinion. The board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the evaluations in his record and his statements related to evaluations, his two-time non-selection for LTC and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the review and conclusion of the advising official as well as the response from the applicant. The Board further considered the numerous post-service letters of support attesting to the applicant’s service and post-service conduct. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board found there was insufficient evidence to remove the two OERs contested by the applicant and determined that the applicant’s non-selection for promotion to LTC was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XXX 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 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies and procedures for the Officer Evaluation Reporting System. It states prompt submission of an appeal is recommended as the likelihood of successfully appealing a report diminished with the passage of time. Substantive appeals on reports rendered five or more years prior are particularly difficult to substantiate with credible evidence. The burden of proof rests with the appellant to produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. Paragraph 7-2 states Special Selection Boards may be convened under Title 10 USC 628 to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information. A material error is defined as one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgement of the reviewing official may have caused an individual's non-selection. Had such errors been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted in the individual being recommended for promotion. 3. The ABCMR may correct an officer's date of rank/effective date of rank when a proper appointment has already occurred. a. Title 10 USC 624 and 741 provide for situations in which properly appointed officers are provided "backdated" dates of rank and effective dates to remedy errors or inequities affecting their promotion. The authority to remedy these errors or inequities is given to the Service Secretaries. b. DODI 1310.01 (23 August 2013) provides that a Service Secretary may "adjust the date of rank of an officer appointed to a higher grade if the appointment of that officer to the higher grade is delayed by unusual circumstances." c. What constitutes "unusual circumstances" will, generally, be for the Board to determine based on the available evidence, which often includes an advisory opinion. d. There may be cases (specifically correction of constructive credit that affects original appointment grade) where relief is not possible because an appointment to a higher grade has not yet occurred. In those cases, the Board should be advised of the limits of its authority. The Board may also be advised that the applicant can submit a request for reconsideration after he or she has been appointed to a higher grade. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170013754 27 1