ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170017517 APPLICANT REQUESTS: to be placed on the retired list in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) instead of Major (MAJ). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self Authored Letter * Officer Record Brief, dated 12 April 2016 * Memo for Army Review Board Agency (ARBA), Subject: Army Grade Determination Review Board for [Applicant], dated 28 December 2016 * Memo for ARBA, Supporting Statements of Applicant x 14 * DA Form 67-10-2 (Officer Evaluation Reports) x 5 * Letter from National Security Council x 3 * Defense Superior Service Medal Certificate * Defense Superior Service Medal Citation * Memo for HRC from ARBA, dated 27 March 2017 * Orders 093-0001, dated 3 April 2017 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 28 July 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant states he was placed on the Retired List in the grade of Major. The decision was made because he mishandled classified information. He respectfully requests this decision be reconsidered as he believes his overall service meets the standard to retire as a LTC. He believes a retirement rank of MAJ is unjust given the manner in which he addressed his mistake and the overall quality of his service while serving in the rank of LTC. 2. In a letter to the Board, the applicant states: * when he realized he mishandled classified information, he self reported and did not hide or destroy evidence; there was no compromise of classified information * he asks the Board to closely look at the way he responded to his error and find redemption in his effort to help the government respond to the situation * how his overall service was above satisfactory * he served as a LTC in two consecutive nominative assignments at the White House for more than three years (whereas one 12-month assignment is normal) where the Deputy National Security Advisor evaluated him as the best military officer out of 28 assigned * the National Security Advisor presented him with two letters of appreciation, the Secretary of Defense awarded him the Defense Superior Service Medal, and the President recognized his service with a letter of appreciation and he details the accomplishments as the director on the President’s national security team in respect to actions in Afghanistan, Ukraine and Pakistan * he was selected for Senior Service College and promoted to Colonel, but he declined promotion because of his mistake * as a LTC, he also served at Army Cyber Command leading a 66-person team on cyber plans, cyber threats, cyber capabilities and his rater, during the time of his mistake of mishandling of classified information, states how the applicant addressed the problem combined with his positive contributions to the mission, did not meet merit for an unsatisfactory rating, his senior rater assessed him as “highly qualified” * the commanding general of Army Cyber Command stated “the nature of severity of the mistake were mitigated” and how the applicant’s “performance has been exemplary” so he highly recommended he retire as a LTC * there are additional reasons why a retirement rank of MAJ is unjust: o excessive to reduce his rank in a sense twice since he declined promotion to Colonel after the mistake o it is disproportional to reduce his retirement rank to MAJ when the commander who adjudicated his situation determined that his punishment should not go beyond a reprimand o the performance observations from officers who served with him in combat and garrison provide additional insight in the overall quality of his service as a LTC which are relevant in determining his grade and he asks the Board to afford weight to these observations o his entire chain of command and numerous senior leaders who knew him recommended he retire as a LTC * he recognizes the difficulty to balance a serious error in judgment against an array of Soldier’s achievements; however, his actions to eliminate harm to the United States and his record of service and actions would result in determining he satisfactorily served in the rank of LTC 3. A review of the applicant's records show on: * 3 June 1995 - the applicant commissioned as a Second Lieutenant (2LT) in the Regular Army * 3 June 1997 - promoted to First Lieutenant * 1 July 1999 - promoted to Captain * 1 October 2005 - promoted to MAJ * 1 August 2008 - promoted to LTC * 12 April 2016 - received a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) and a Memorandum of Reprimand 4. DA Form 2627 shows: * the applicant was in possession of documents and material containing classified information of the United States by virtue of his office and position on divers occasions between 1 May 2014 to 15 June 2015 * he knowingly and unlawfully removed documents and files marked "TOP SECRET","SECRET/ SPECIAL ACCESS REQUIRED', "NATO/ SECRET", "NATO/ CONFIDENTIAL" and "CONFIDENTIAL" by competent original classification authorities, without authority and with the intent to retain documents and material at an authorized location * he did not demand trial by court-martial, he requested a closed hearing * punishment imposed; "Written Reprimand" 5. On 12 April 2016, the applicant received a Memorandum Subject: Memorandum of Reprimand. The Memorandum of Reprimand shows: * he was reprimanded for exercising extremely poor judgement and failing to adhere to Federal, Army and DoD regulations regarding removal and storage of classified documents * it was imposed as punishment under Article 15, UCMJ * the Memorandum of Reprimand and Article 15 will be filed in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Records 6. On 28 December 2016, the applicant submitted a Memorandum for ARBA; Subject: Army Grade Determination Review Board showing he: * requests retirement at the grade of LTC * he made serious mistakes by mishandling classified information and is sorry for the error * requests his overall quality of his service and performance level be taken into consideration 7. The applicant provided 14 supporting statements for his Grade Determination Board showing he is an exceptional officer and his military service has been satisfactory for him to retire at the rank of LTC. * Commander of Army Cyber Command states he ultimately punished the applicant with a written reprimand and though his mistake was serious, the nature and severity of the mistake were mitigated, and the applicant’s performance has been exemplary * his senior rater during the time states after his mistake, he continued to make important contributions to their unit and he addressed the mistake consistent with Army values and his service was outstanding * his rater during the time states after he reported his mistake, his chain of command, including him, continued to entrust him with important tasks * his rater starting in March 2016, states of critical importance there was no compromise of information as determined by the CID; his mistake was greatly mitigated by him taking responsibility for his actions. GOSCA and ARCYBER Commander determined he would not be eliminated, and it’s clear his performance shows he was being groomed to be a general officer based on his enormous potential * his attorney how the applicant was appropriately punished for his mistake and reducing him sends the wrong message to the force and will dissuade Solders from making the difficult decision the applicant made and will put our country at greater risk * several Colonels, Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals and SES further comment on the applicant’s exemplary career and service and how and why he should retire at the rank of LTC 8. The applicant also provided: * his officer record brief providing overview of his career and performance * five DA Form 67 from 8 February 2012 to 26 July 2017 showing he served exceptionally receiving highly qualified evaluations while working in both the White House and Army Cyber Command * three letters for recognition on his efforts and contributions to the National Security Council * Defense Superior Service Medal certificate and citation for his exceptionally meritorious service. 9. On 27 March 2017, ARBA sent Human Resource Command (HRC) Commanding General a Memorandum regarding applicant's Officer Grade Determination Case. ARBA reviewed the applicant's voluntary retirement request submitted by the applicant and the grade determination request submitted by Army HRC. The retirement was approved and the applicant was placed on the retirement list in the grade of MAJ. It was determined the applicant's service in the grade of LTC was not satisfactory. 10. On 3 April 2017, the applicant received orders 093-0001, retirement orders separating him in the rank of MAJ/ O4, with 22 years, 1 month and 28 days. The applicant's was placed on the retirement list 1 August 2017 with an effective date of retirement was 31 July 2017. 11. Army Regulation (AR) 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations) Mandates referral to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for grade determinations of officers who are pending retirement and who, since their last promotion, have been subjects of substantiated adverse findings that are reflected in their official military personnel files. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive. The AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits. Generally, determination will be based on the soldier’s overall service in the grade in question, either on active duty. Service in the highest grade or an intermediate grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when: * The highest grade was a result of a terminal leave promotion (see the glossary for a definition of this term). * b. Reversion to a lower grade was— o Expressly for prejudice or cause. o (2) Owing to misconduct. o (3) Caused by nonjudicial punishment pursuant to UCMJ, Art. 15. o (4) The result of the sentence of a court-martial. One specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon a review of the case, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence presented to show an injustice or error which would warrant the Board correcting the record. The Board found that the case was properly reviewed and handled and that the decision to have the retirement rank of the applicant as Major was not an arbitrary decision, but one based upon material evidence of misconduct. For that reason, the Board recommended that the request of the applicant be denied. 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 (AR) 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations) Mandates referral to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for grade determinations of officers who are pending retirement and who, since their last promotion, have been subjects of substantiated adverse findings that are reflected in their official military personnel files. A grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive. The AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits. Generally, determination will be based on the soldier’s overall service in the grade in question, either on active duty or other service qualifying the soldier for service/physical disability retirement, receipt of retired pay, or separation for physical disability. Service in the highest grade or an intermediate grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when: * The highest grade was a result of a terminal leave promotion (see the glossary for a definition of this term). * b. Reversion to a lower grade was— o Expressly for prejudice or cause. o (2) Owing to misconduct. o (3) Caused by nonjudicial punishment pursuant to UCMJ, Art. 15. o (4) The result of the sentence of a court-martial. One specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170017517 0 5 1