ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 14 April 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016395 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a. correction of his date of rank (DOR) for his promotion to first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 from 12 April 2016 to 20 December 2014 and b. issuance of an officer evaluation report (OER) for his entire service in the Wyoming Army National Guard (WYARNG), starting in April 2016. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * Statement, undated * Pages 2 and 3 of Memorandum, Army National Guard, undated, subject: Corrected Copy: Promotion from Second Lieutenant (2LT)/O-2 to 1LT and from Warrant Officer One (WO1) to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) (Personnel Policy Operational Memorandum (PPOM) Number 13-006) * Email Correspondence, dated 2016-2017 * Memorandum, WYARNG, dated 25 April 2016, subject: Promotion Extension Waiver to Over 24 months (Applicant) * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 78 (Recommendation for Promotion to 1LT/CW2), dated 9 June 2016 * Memorandum, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) P P , dated 27 June 2016, subject: Letter of Recommendation/Performance for (Applicant) * Leave and Earnings Statement, dated 5 April 2017 * News Release, dated 2 May 2017, titled: WYARNG Soldier Finishes 100 Mile Ultramarathon * five DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 7 May 2017, 4 June 2017 (two), and 15 June 2017 (two) * DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment), dated 13 June 2017 * Text Messages, dated 1-3 November 2017 * DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate (01-03; W01-CW2) OER) covering the period 12 April 2016 through 10 August 2017 * Memorandum, 1LT E T. V , Commander, Company C, WYARNG, dated 14 August 2017, subject: Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence * Letter, WYARNG, dated 1 February 2018 * Letter, NGB, dated 7 May 2018 * Letter, WYARNG, dated 21 May 2018 REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 135-155 (ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) – Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the ARNG of the United States and of commissioned and warrant officers of the USAR. a. Table 2-2 (Military Educational Requirements Commissioned Officers, Other than Commissioned Warrant Officers Grade) shows the resident Officer Basic Course (see note 1) is required for 2LT to 1LT. b. Note 1 states: "Officers assigned to Control Group (Officer Active Duty Obligor) (see paragraph 2-8b(1)) and former active duty obligor officers (including Early Commissioning Program (ECP) participants) transferred to the Control Group (Annual Training) or the Selected Reserve preceding their promotion eligibility to 1LT are not required to meet the educational requirement for promotion to 1LT." 2. Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Program: Organization, Administration, and Training) prescribes policies and general procedures for administering the Army's Senior ROTC Program. Chapter 6, section II (The ECP), paragraph 6-15 (Eligibility for Appointment), states: a. ROTC graduates may be commissioned under the provisions of the ECP provided they are graduates of a military junior college. The only exception is for those cadets who have been selected for Reserve Forces Duty by the Department of the Army ROTC selection board. Acceptance of an early commission terminates cadet status. Subsistence or further scholarship benefits will not be authorized. b. Military junior college graduates are eligible for appointment under the ECP provided they meet the following criteria: (1) have completed all ROTC requirements, (2) have less than 36 months remaining to complete baccalaureate degree requirements after being commissioned, and (3) have an official letter of acceptance to an accredited baccalaureate degree granting 4-year institution. c. Military junior college graduates commissioned under the provisions of the ECP will join an ARNG or USAR unit if available. The Professor of Military Science will assist each cadet in obtaining a vacancy. 3. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. Paragraph 2-10a(2) states newly commissioned officers (Regular Army and ARNG) and newly appointed warrant officers will not be eligible to receive OERs, except for "relief for cause" reports, until after completion of the respective Officer Basic Course (Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) or Warrant Officer Basic Course WOBC)). Units will begin the rating period upon arrival at the first duty station or assignment after completion of BOLC or WOBC. The officer's first "annual" ("extended annual") OER will be due 12 rated months after arrival at the first duty assignment unless another event (for example, "change of rater" or "change of duty") occurs. The "FROM" date of the period covered will be the commissioning or appointment date. 4. PPOM Number 13-006, date unknown, subject: Corrected Copy: Promotion from 2LT/O-2 to 1LT and from WO1 to CW2, states the State must consider all 2LTs for promotion and complete an NGB Form 78 at 18 months whether or not the 2LT is qualified and recommended for promotion. If a 2LT is not recommended for promotion at 18 months, the commander must submit an NGB Form 78 with a request for separation or a request for the Adjutant General to grant an extension to 24 months. If the officer was retained but not promoted at 18 months, the unit commander must submit another NGB Form 78 at 24 months. If the officer is still not recommended at 24 months, the unit commander must forward a completed NGB Form 78 with a request for separation or a request for extension through the State G-1 to the NGB for approval to 36 months. By statute, no extensions beyond 36 months are authorized. This process is required regardless of the reason for the officer being found not qualified for promotion. The Adjutant General may separate the officer rather than request an extension at any time after 18 months. 2LTs commissioned through the ECP are eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months' time in grade without the requirement to complete a BOLC. States are required to verify all promotion eligibility when submitting requests for Federal recognition. FACTS: 1. The applicant states his 1LT promotion date should be corrected to 20 December 2014 per PPOM Number 13-006, section 7. a. The WYARNG did not promote him to 1LT on 20 December 2014 because he was not a graduate of as stated in the enclosed memorandum from the WYARNG, dated 25 April 2016, subject: Promotion Extension Waiver to Over 24 Months (Applicant) and NGB Form 78, dated 9 June 2016. b. He received a two-star coin from the Wyoming Adjutant General; a letter of recommendation from LTC P ; a job offer at Camp Guernsey, where he worked on active duty operational support orders from 12 May 2016 to 30 June 2016 and 3 April 2017 to 26 June 2017; a positive article on Wyoming's military website; and nothing but positive performance feedback both of the times he worked there. c. He could not work on his promotion issue from 7 July 2016 to 14 February 2017 due to being in Ranger school. He began being harassed after returning from Ranger school on 14 February 2017. He was counseled for requesting adjustment of his promotion date, poor performance, fraternization, alcohol abuse, and lying in a sworn statement. He was fired from his job at Camp Guernsey via text message. Changing his promotion date would have affected the future company command position. At the time, he was the only qualified infantry officer and, if they backdated his promotion, he would have been eligible for captain (CPT) as well as the company command position. d. The unit had a directed morale, welfare, and recreation event at the end of annual training on 13 June 2017. He requested not to go due to the circumstances. He was told that his attendance was mandatory. He attended the event, but the next day he was called in to submit a sworn statement. Apparently, sometime during the event, a staff sergeant struck a private two. He was not aware of this incident and did not see what happened, so that is what he wrote in his sworn statement. He was counseled again by 1LT V for poor performance during annual training. The next morning, CPT M counseled him for lying in his sworn statement; fraternization during the morale, welfare, and recreation event; and alcohol abuse because he had a few beers during the event, as did many others. He asked again if he could be transferred to another unit and he was told no. He was then fired via text message the next Monday. e. He felt his unit was out to ruin his career and, for self-preservation, he needed to transfer out of the unit. He submitted a DA Form 4651, dated 13 June 2017, requesting to be transferred to the 3rd Battalion, 360th Regiment, in Salt Lake City, UT, and it was approved. He received acceptance to a unit in Salt Lake City on 13 June 2017 and fully transferred to the USAR on 1 August 2017. f. He submitted two Congressional complaints for harassment over this issue. The responses to both Congressional complaints were recommendations to file an application with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 2. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) shows he enlisted in the USAR on 25 January 2011 for a period of 8 years beginning as a cadet. 3. The memorandum from the Department of Military Science, dated 14 December 2012, subject: Appointment in Accordance with the ECP (Army Regulation 145-1, Chapter 6, Section II) as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army under Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 591,593, 2104, 2106 and 2107, states he was accepted under the ECP through the New Mexico Military Institute on 20 December 2012. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of 2LT and executed an oath of office on 20 December 2012. 4. NGB Special Orders Number 53, dated 19 February 2013, extended him Federal recognition in the ARNG for his initial appointment in the rank of 2LT. He was assigned to the 177th Topographic Engineer Company, Dobbins Air Force Base, Marietta, GA. 5. On 5 October 2015, the WYARNG accepted him into their vacant platoon leader position. 6. WYARNG Orders 32-010, dated 1 February 2016, appointed him in the ARNG effective 28 January 2016. 7. The email from Sergeant First Class (SFC) D L. D to the applicant, dated 29 March 2016, states 1LT M , Office of Personnel Management Manager, will need the applicant to turn in his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) after he completes BOLC. Once he has the DA Form 1059, 1LT M will produce a memorandum and request an exception to policy to get his promotion going. The reason it took so long was due to not being branch qualified. 8. The applicant's DA Form 1059, dated 5 April 2016, shows he completed BOLC effective 12 April 2016. 9. The memorandum from the WYARNG to the NGB, dated 25 April 2016, subject: Promotion Extension Waiver to Over 24 Months (Applicant), requested a waiver to promote the applicant over 24 months versus the NGB policy to promote at 18 months due to a shortage of BOLC training seats. 10. The NGB Form 78, dated 9 June 2016, shows the WYARNG requested the applicant's promotion to 1LT with an effective date of 12 April 2016. He had 36 months of time in grade at the time. 11. WYARNG Orders 161-011, dated 9 June 2016, promoted him to 1LT effective 12 April 2016. 12. The memorandum from LTC P , dated 27 June 2016, subject: Letter of Recommendation/Performance for (Applicant), states he supervised and worked with the applicant during the 2016 Saratoga Flood Response. Even though the applicant had not had a previous opportunity to work with the individuals assigned to his team prior to this mission, the applicant took charge and led his rapid action team to a very successful conclusion. The week he spent with the applicant showed him that the applicant had the drive and ability to be a successful officer. He believed the applicant was a person of the highest moral character. The applicant's performance during that week showed him that he had very good judgment and he could completely rely on him to make good, sound decisions. He felt he could fully trust the applicant to efficiently carry out his duty without much supervision. The applicant understood the concepts that drove the organization and what measures were needed to ensure success. 13. NGB Memorandum, dated 18 April 2017, subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army, announced the applicant's promotion to 1LT effective 12 April 2016. 14. NGB Special Orders Number 76, dated 18 April 2017, extended him Federal recognition in the rank of 1LT effective 12 April 2016. 15. The applicant provided the following email correspondence: a. On 24 April 2017, he requested assistance from MAJ J M. S , WYARNG Officer Personnel Manager, getting his promotion date corrected. He mentioned that OLC was not a requirement for his promotion because he was an early commissioned lieutenant. b. On 27 April 2017, MAJ S told the applicant to discuss his issue with his battalion commander because he needed his approval before they would process and submit the request. c. On 16 May 2017, he asked MAJ S if there was an update on his date of rank. d. On 16 May 2017, MAJ S stated: "No, there isn't an update and won't be for some time. I owe your battalion commander some additional data for his review prior to submitting the packet because this isn't an action you just do without his approval. Expect a long process. Should I assume that you haven't checked the status with your unit? While I am here to help you, unit procedures should be followed. If your unit requires you to work this issue through the unit, then you are required to do so. I will keep them advised of major status changes as they occur." e. On 16 May 2017, 2LTA L. H , 94th Troop Command S-1/S-4, asked the applicant's company commander, CPT M , to talk to the applicant about utilizing his chain of command. f. On 16 May 2017, CPT M instructed him to use only the unit as his point of contact for his promotion action and directed him not to jump the chain of command again. If he failed to follow this order, he would be punished under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 16. The DA Form 4856, dated 7 May 2017, shows 1LT V , Executive Officer, counseled the applicant on the possible ramifications of backdating his promotion. If the applicant's promotion date for 1LT is corrected to 2014, he would most likely be considered by a Department of the Army mandatory promotion board. That board would review all personnel records and assignment history (BOLC graduation in 2016 and transfer from Georgia to Wyoming in 2015). The board may decide not to recommend him for promotion to CPT based on his limited assignment history and lack of rated time (one OER rated as a platoon leader). If not recommended, he would be considered by the Department of the Army board the following year and if not recommended for promotion a second time, he would most likely be separated from the ARNG. 1LT V did not recommend pursuance of the backdated promotion because it would place the applicant behind his peer group. He would not be as competitive as a CPT if he pursued the backdated promotion. The applicant disagreed with the counseling and stated he was going to continue to pursue his correct promotion date. Prior to 7 May 2017, he did not receive any counseling's (initial, subsequent, or follow up) from his rater, CPT J K. M , or senior rater, LTC T . 17. The DA Form 4856, dated 4 June 2017, shows the executive officer counseled the applicant on his performance during the annual training conducted in June 2017. He stated the training the applicant provided to his platoon was below standard and unacceptable. 18. The DA Form 4856, dated 15 June 2017, shows the company commander, CPT M , counseled the applicant for being involved in an alcohol-related incident in which a Soldier was struck in the face by a noncommissioned officer (NCO). He was told that officers should not drink with enlisted Soldiers and NCOs. This type of relationship is known as fraternization and punishable under Article 134, UCMJ. The applicant stated he was not present for the incident, but he did have a few beers like the other officers who were present and he did not over-consume. 19. The DA Form 4856, dated 15 June 2017, shows the company commander, CPT M , also counseled the applicant for submitting a false official sworn statement. He stated the applicant he was involved in an alcohol-related incident in which a Soldier was struck in the face by an NCO. When he was asked to provide details, the applicant gave inaccurate information in order to prevent himself from being implicated. This type of behavior called into question whether or not he could be trusted to lead Soldiers. This behavior could have resulted in administrative action. The applicant disagreed and reiterated that he was not present when the incident occurred. 20. On 26 June 2017, he received a text message from CPT M , stating his active duty for operational support orders were revoked. 21. The memorandum from 1LT V , WYARNG, dated 14 August 2017, subject: Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, states the applicant was absent from an unspecified unit training assembly. The applicant was advised that unless the absence was excused, he will have accrued eight unexcused absences within a 1-year period and he will be separated for unsatisfactory participation if he accrues nine unexcused absences within a 1-year period. He was informed the next scheduled training assembly would be on 7 September 2017 at 1800. 22. The applicant provided the following additional email correspondence: a. On 18 October 2017, he reiterated his conversation with SFC A R , 3rd Battalion, 360th Regiment (Troop Support Battalion) S-1 Section, regarding their conversation about changing his promotion date for 1LT to 20 December 2014 per Army Regulation 135-155, Note 1, and PPOM Number 13-005, paragraph 7. b. On 29 October 2017, SFC R requested assistance from the Officer Personnel Management Directorate, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), getting the applicant's promotion date corrected to reflect 20 December 2014. c. On 31 October 2017, MAJ J D. A Ill, Reserve Branch Operations, HRC, informed SFC R that the reason the applicant didn't get promoted until 12 April 2016 was because he didn't complete BOLC until 12 April 2016. Soldiers will not be promoted to 1LT from 2LT until they have completed BOLC. The date they complete BOLC, if after 18 months, will be their promotion date. d. On 6 November 2017, SFC R replied to MAJ A , stating the applicant was a member of the ECP. According to Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2, Note 1: "Officers assigned to Control Group (OADO [Officer Active Duty Obligor]) (see paragraph 2-8b(1)) and former active duty obligor officers (including ECP participants) transferred to the Control Group (Annual Training) or the Selected Reserve preceding their promotion eligibility to 1LT are not required to meet the educational requirement for promotion to 1LT." e. On 7 November 2017, SFC R informed the applicant that he would have to contact the ARNG to fix his promotion issue. He stated he got "push back" from MAJ A at HRC, citing the applicant's BOLC graduation date. MAJ A contacted HRC Promotions who said the applicant needed to contact the State ARNG that promoted him because the promotion was generated at the State level and therefore HRC could not touch it. f. On 7 November 2017, the applicant requested assistance from Mr. E J. M , ARNG G-1 FOE, because it was becoming more time sensitive due to the approaching CPT promotion boards. He did not have faith that the State of Wyoming would fix his 1LT promotion date in a timely manner because they did not fix it when he was assigned to them. g. On 4 December 2017, Mr. M , HRC, contacted Mr. G S and MAJ S , WYARNG Officer Personnel Manager, requesting a status on the applicant's date of rank adjustment. According to his records, the applicant was an early commission with an appointment commissioning date of 20 December 2012 and expected promotion date of on or about 20 December 2014. According to Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2, Note 1: "Officers assigned to Control Group (Officer Active Duty Obligor) (see paragraph 2-8b(1)) and former active duty obligor officers (including ECP participants) transferred to the Control Group (Annual Training) or the Selected Reserve preceding their promotion eligibility to 1LT are not required to meet the educational requirement for promotion to 1LT." Per PPOM Number 13-006, paragraph 7, 2LTs commissioned through the ECP are eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months of time in grade without the requirement to complete a BOLC per reference 1c above, Table 2-2, Note 1. Additional criteria for promotion to 1LT are outlined in references 1a through 1d above. The applicant was promoted on 4 December 2016 after completion of BOLC, when BOLC was not required to meet the educational requirement for promotion to 1LT. h. On 4 December 2017, MAJ S informed Mr. M , HRC, that the applicant was no longer a member of the WYARNG and Mr. S had retired. 23. The WYARNG letter to the applicant's Congressional representative, dated 1 February 2018, states per National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), the State of Wyoming and the 94th Troop Commander were under no obligation to backdate the applicant's promotion to 20 December 2014. It was at the commander's discretion to make the determination if there was sufficient evidence to justify and request backdating a Soldier's promotion. The applicant's situation did not warrant any adjustments to his promotion date, particularly since he had only been accessed in the WYARNG a few months prior to his BOLC graduation and the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG) did not document any such action in his record prior to his transfer. The applicant was promoted to 1LT on 12 April 2016, which is the date he graduated BOLC. 24. The GAARNG letter to the applicant's Congressional representative, dated 7 May 2018, states the GAARNG determined the WYARNG was the appropriate avenue to address the applicant's concerns regarding his promotion. 25. The WYARNG letter to the applicant's Congressional representative, dated 21 May 2018, states the applicant was appointed to the GAARNG on 20 December 2012. a. Per PPOM Number 13-006, 2LTs commissioned through the ECP are eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months of time in grade without the requirement to complete BOLC. However, the State ARNG in which appointed must ensure the officer is fully qualified and submit a recommendation for promotion to the NGB Federal Recognition Section. The GAARNG did not document any such action prior to the applicant's transfer to the WYARNG. b. Two years after initially becoming eligible for promotion to 1LT on 28 January 2016 while attending BOLC, the applicant completed an inter-state transfer to the WYARNG. In March 2016 while still at BOLC, the applicant contacted the WYARNG regarding his promotion to 1LT. At that time, he was informed by the 94th Troop Commander that because he was a newly accessed officer to the WYARNG, having not yet completed BOLC, nor having spent any time drilling with the WYARNG, there was no body of work by which the battalion commander could measure his performance to justify backdating his promotion to 20 December 2014, when, as previously stated, he was still a member of the GAARNG. Therefore, his commander told him his promotion would be the date he completed BOLC, which was 12 April 2016. Per National Guard Regulation 600-100, neither the 94th Troop Commander nor the WYARNG were under any obligation to backdate the applicant's promotion to 20 December 2014. It is at the commander's discretion to make the determination if there is sufficient evidence to justify and request backdating a Soldier's promotion. c. Regarding the WYARNG memorandum, dated 25 April 2016, subject: Promotion Extension Waiver to Over 24 months, this memorandum was written in a standard format by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel to initiate a promotion waiver throughthe NGB, which was needed prior to completing a State promotion order . This waiver was needed because an officer is required to complete BOLC within 24 months of being commissioned. Since the applicant started BOLC on 30 November 2015, a waiver was required to extend his BOLC completion from 24 months to 36 months. At this point he was in his 36th month from his commissioning date; 1 more day without reporting to a resident BOLC would have resulted in the requirement for the GAARNG to process him for separation. d. As the Congressional representative mentioned, the WYARNG memorandum does state: "due to shortage of available training slots, [Applicant] was not able to attend BOLC until 20151130 [30 November 2015]. He completed BOLC on 20160412 [12 April 2016] and is now eligible for promotion to 1LT." This was a standard memorandum format, but the delay in BOLC was not the reason he was not promoted under the ECP. The regulation does not require completion of BOLC for an officer who has gone through the ECP to get promoted to 1LT. It does, however, require the battalion commander to justify such a promotion, to include any backdating. As stated above and in the previous response sent to the another Congressional representative, the battalion commander was unable to measure the performance of the "new" accession to sufficiently justify backdating the applicant's promotion to 1LT because he had not yet attended any type of training with the WYARNG. e. The series of events surrounding the applicant's promotion date to 1LT originated while he was a member of the GAARNG. The early promotion should have been initiated prior to his transfer to the WYARNG. When transferred to the WYARNG, the applicant was promoted in line with the normal regulatory processes to promote 2LTs to 1LTs. 26. The applicant's records show he received the following company grade OERs: * 12 April 2016 through 10 August 2017 – 16-month extended annual report – Company C, 1st Battalion, 297th Infantry Regiment, WYARNG * 11 August 2017 through 10 August 2018 – 12-month annual report – 3rd Battalion, 360th Regiment, USAR * 10 August 2018 through 17 April 2019 – 8-month change of rater report – 3rd Battalion, 360th Regiment, USAR 27. HRC Orders B-12-909453A01, dated 7 January 2020, promoted him to CPT/O-3 effective 9 September 2019. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, his ECP accession, his service in the GAARNG and his transfer to the WYARNG, his attendance at BOLC and subsequent promotions to 1LT and CPT. The Board considered the documented communications regarding his promotion, to include responses to Congressional inquiries, the discussions of extending his promotion period, the policy that ECP officers to do have to meet education requirements to be promoted to 1LT and the dates of his completion of BOLC. The Board also considered the applicant’s performance during the 2016 Saratoga Flood Response and a record of counseling by his WYARNG chain of command. The Board also considered the applicant’s company grade OERs and the policy related to extended annual reports. The Board found that the applicant met requirements and should have been promoted to 1LT upon reaching 24 months TIG as a 2LT. The Board found that there was no error or injustice regarding the absence of OERs in his records. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the date of the applicant’s promotion to 1LT required correction. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show the effective date and date of rank for the applicant’s promotion to 1LT as 20 December 2014. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to further correction of his date of promotion or relief pertaining to additional evaluation reports. X CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): not applicable. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//