ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 23 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190003911 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of the relief-for-cause DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 13 December 2013 through 25 April 2014, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) * amendment or removal of the entry in block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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) * TAB A – Chronology of Events * TAB B – Rebuttal Matters * TAB C – Communication/Contact from Captain (CPT) S * TAB D – Inspector General (IG) Complaint/Email to Colonel (COL) H * TAB E – Request for Audio Transcript of 21 January 2015 Board of Inquiry (BOI) (5 through 7 May 2015) * TAB F – Documents to U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) * TAB G – Active Guard Reserve Transfer Recommendation Memorandum for Applicant * TAB H – Statements of Support * TAB I – Afghanistan Activities * TAB J – Counseling for CPT S * TAB K – Commander's Inquiry Results * TAB L – DD Form 214 for the period ending August 2009 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. He believes the initial evidence in his OER rebuttal was either overlooked by HRC and the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) or HRC didn't submit the evidence to ARBA. b. An examination of the sequence of events will show clearly and convincingly that COL M R. M , the Deputy Commanding Officer (DCO), targeted him for elimination from the onset because he challenged an OER that COL K R , the 10th Sustainment Brigade Commander, rendered which was removed from his file. COL M targeted him in reprisal. c. He believes the written transcript was a misrepresentation of the audio transcript. He submitted his rebuttal and CPT E B. S contacted him to persuade him to withdraw his rebuttal and have someone else submit a redrafted rebuttal because Major General (MG) S J. T was uncomfortable sending his case forward to HRC. d. He sent additional evidence to HRC, which he believes was never presented to ARBA. He requested the audio transcripts, but CPT S P declined to provide it to him. MG T never intended to send his BOI packet to ARBA prior to his change of command. He filed a complaint with the 18th Airborne Corps Inspector General's Office to compel MG T to send his packet to HRC a day before his change of command. e. No investigation or survey was conducted into the allegations by Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) I . The Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation determination for the alleged and unfounded sexual harassment allegation was withheld from him. CPT P_ and Master Sergeant (MSG) Z made false statements about him. He never told CPT P to change anything in one of the contracts. f. He is sufficiently knowledgeable of contract operations to know the only person who is authorized to change a contract is the contracting officer and it is normally done based on the recommendation of the contracting officer's representative. g. Particular attention should be paid to MSG Z 's March 2014 statement that shows the 180-degree turn in her position about his behavior. h. He requests approval to retire in the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 because of the almost 5 years of deficiency in his professional development, both in the operational and institutional domains. i. The 30-day time period leading his separation (26 June 2015 to 26 July 2015) did not allow him access to the resources he needed to mount an adequate appeal, especially when considering the alleged transgression. k. An examination of the evidence absolutely and unconditionally shows there were bad decisions made by senior officers who were uncomfortable with his rebuttal but proceeded to recommend his separation from the military anyway. While he believes the integrity of the military is sacrosanct, he also believes that justice must prevail. This inviolability should compel the military (U.S. Army) to address matters without the intervention of other institutions. 3. The applicant's records show he was promoted to the grade/rank of major (MAJ)/O-4 effective 1 January 2001. 4. The Developmental Counseling Form, dated 29 August 2013, shows he counseled CPT J S on 29 August 2013 and states: a. This is a performance and event-oriented counseling. He is concerned about CPT S 's loyalty to the section when he is glorifying an officer of the same rank for a task that his Distribution-Mobility Team could have helped him complete. b. Additionally, CPT S failed to communicate with him about not showing up in physical training formation. CPT S completely ignored him and did not communicate with him as to why he didn't show up for physical training. 5. The memorandum from the HRC Appeals and Correction Branch, dated 10 September 2013, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal (8 August 2012 through 12 December 2012), states his evaluation report for the subject period has been removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record. He now has the option for having the period of this report added to his next evaluation as nonrated time, citing code Q (Lack of Rater Qualification). 6. The Developmental Counseling Form, dated 1 October 2013, shows he counseled CPT J S on 29 August 2013 and states: a. This is an event-oriented counseling. CPT S is being counseled for being disrespectful and failing to obey a direct order. On 26 September 2013, CPT S walked away from him after he asked to talk to him privately about his bad attitude. He gave CPT S a directive to return to the tent area where he could talk with him one-on-one, but he refused to comply with the directive. b. He gave CPT S a directive to continue to work for additional time because of the workload. CPT S refused to do so and proceeded to call LTC M . He was disturbed by the fact CPT S engaged in maligning a fellow captain who works in the Distribution Integration Branch during the course of preparing the Concept of Support plan by consistently talking about how sub-standard her work was. CPT S refused to sign the counseling. 7. The memorandum from COL W R III, Commander, 10th Sustainment Brigade, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), dated 26 February 2014, subject: Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant), states: a. He fully endorses the applicant in any endeavor he may choose. The applicant possesses balanced experience along with the skills, abilities, and traits to be an operational multiplier in the Active Guard Reserve. The applicant's performance is in the top 15 percent of staff officers in the brigade. The applicant's dedication to mission and accomplishment and ability to solve complex problems is beyond reproach and makes the applicant an asset in any organization. b. In the last 17 months, the applicant has held jobs as the Sustainment Brigade S-3 and Support Operations Distribution Chief, and he selected him to serve as the Brigade S-4 which is a key development position. In all these capacities, the applicant has done a phenomenal job in supporting the brigade's mission, whether as the S-3 managing taskings or as the Distribution Chief providing transportation support and management of assets through coordination and synchronization of support operations, or training personnel in contracting in support of the Operation Enduring Freedom mission. 8. His OER covering the period 13 December 2013 through 25 April 2014 shows in: a. Part I (Administrative), item i (Reason for Submission), the reason for submission as code 05, relief for cause; b. Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism, Competencies and Attributes): (1) item d1 (Character), his rater noted he failed to establish a workplace and overall climate of dignity and respect for all Soldiers; (2) item d2 (Comments), his rater noted he created a toxic climate within the Brigade S-4 Section and was subsequently given a letter of concern by the brigade commander. The brigade commander relieved the applicant because he lost trust and faith in his ability to lead Soldiers and he failed to take appropriate measures to improve the atmosphere within the Brigade S-4 Section; and c. Part VI (Senior Rater): (1) item a (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rater in Same Grade), his senior rater, COL R _, rated him "Not Qualified"; and (2) item c (Comments on Potential), his senior noted the applicant's potential to continue serving in the Army is hampered due to his lack of leadership and his inability to communicate with his subordinates. Over the course of this rating period, the applicant was given a letter of concern due to his negative command climate. Do not promote. 9. An email from CW3 I to CPT D , dated 19 May 2014, states: a. All equipment that is "found/acquired/procured" must be put on the property books and must go on her Theater Provided Equipment property books for accountability if it has been "found/acquired/procured" by people within the Headquarters and Headquarters Company/Special Troops Battalion as she has the property book for the brigade headquarters. b. Specialist (SPC) G has no regard for property accountability. She would encourage a meeting of some sort to educate the personnel once again on proper accountability procedures. 10. The applicant provided four memorandums/recommendations for his retention from his former supervisors and his operations sergeant major, dated 14 August 2014 through 3 October 2014, attesting to his character and professionalism. They all indicated they never saw or recalled hearing the applicant was hostile or abusive to his subordinates. 11. The BOI Findings and Recommendations, dated 21 January 2015, found the allegation of failure to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of his grade, in the notification of proposed separation, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The allegation of failure to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer's grade and experience, in the notification of proposed separation, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In view of the findings, the board recommended the applicant's separatation from the U.S. Army with an honorable characterization of service. 12. The memorandum from the applicant to the Commanding General, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), dated 10 February 2015, subject: Request Retention, states: a. He acknowledged that his leadership capabilities were in question and he submitted that his command authority was fractured and undermined by prejudices from his movement from the position of Support Operations Distribution Officer in Charge (OIC) to the Brigade S-4 section, in which he was seen as a problem. CPT J S was bragging that he got him fired. The lack of leadership he was accused of is not reflected in his previous two OER's and the two letters of continuity he received prior to going into Brigade S-4 position. b. Additionally, 90 to 100 percent of his subordinates were aware that COL M M , the DCO, treated him differently. It was obvious because he did not hesitate to call all primary staff officers by their first names and called him by his rank. c. COL R selected him to be the OIC for the 10th Sustainment Brigade leadership for the 548th Combat Service Support Battalion support mission at the Joint Readiness Training Center in June 2013. He could accept a permanent change of station to see if another command would feel the same way or he could accept a functional area transfer. The previous command alleges he was given several chances; however, that was not the case because he was in the same unit. d. The 10th Sustainment Brigade Command was not consistent in its guidance in enforcing the regulation because COL M and MAJ D were aware that CW3 I was in violation of the fraternization policy because she went to lunch and dinner frequently with SSG B_ , but they choose to look the other way. e. His initial counseling from COL M was on 27 February 2014 which was 18 days after his transfer of authority, dated 9 February 2014. That was the first time COL M informed him that he needed to improve his performance, along with his alleged Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program violation and missing movement on 22 January 2014. He was in the bus behind the one SFC G was in and he got to the Rapid Deployment Facility 10 to 15 minutes after the DCO arrived. He communicated with SFC P G and he communicated with SFC M , the rear detachment first sergeant, that he was getting to Fort Drum 48 hours later due to inclement weather. f. He has rights as well, but he was never afforded those rights that every Soldier should have because the report of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was never given to him so he could submit a rebuttal to it. It is apparent that he was marked because he initiated a Commander's Inquiry to MG T to investigate why COL K R gave him a 60-day senior rater option OER but did not do the same for MAJ J C. D . The OER in question was removed from his file. g. He is fighting for his name, the question of his character, and his reputation. He believes that women should not be used to end a Soldier's career, especially those who are innocent and have done nothing wrong. He cannot in good conscience say COL R is a racist, but he is the commander who relied on COL M . It is COL R 's responsibility for COL M to exercise disciplined initiative in a manner that is fair and consistent with ethics and legality. 13. The memorandum from the applicant to HRC, dated 10 February 2015, subject: Supporting Statements, requests a Commander's Inquiry to investigate the situation and circumstances surrounding his relief-for-cause OER and his separation from the U.S. Army by a BOI. a. The allegation that he created a toxic environment was made by CW3 K G. I who worked for him and was directly under his purview was clearly false. CW3 I _'s statements have not been substantiated and any statements made by her resulting in his relief for cause and subsequent separation from the U.S. Army are a miscarriage of justice. b. CW3 I 's actions were predicated on the fact that he criticized her actions for sending an email to CPT D , attacking SPC G . Sergeant (SGT) L B , who was SPC G 's supervisor, was the person with whom CW3 I went to breakfast, lunch, and dinner. SGT B forwarded an email to CW3 I that SPC G had sent to MSG Z about a printer that MSG Z requested. In fact, CW3 I did not use the original email that SGT B sent, but generated a new email with the information that SGT B sent to her. c. He halted all responses to the email on 19 May 2014 and informed all parties that he would call a meeting in the next 24 to 72 hours. He called a meeting on 21 May 2014 and made a mental note that there was a perceived partiality toward SGT B and unfair treatment of SPC G because of the friendship between CW3 I and SGT B . He criticized CW3 I 's actions by saying she should not have sent the email, but he did not chastise her. He was alarmed by COL M , the DCO, telling MAJ S , the plans officer, not to talk to the property book officer. d. He addressed CW3 I along with the rest of his staff on 11 June 2014. He was uncomfortable with the fact that COL M brought up the issue at the DCO huddle. He considered asking COL M why he was discussing the issue because he felt he had addressed it at his level, but Sergeant First Class (SFC) G , his noncommissioned officer in charge, advised against it. It was clear a clear indication that CW3 I had been talking to the DCO without his knowledge. When COL M brought up the subject, it was obvious that CW3 I had already made the accusations in question. e. The counseling he received from COL M was initially dated 18 June 2014, but COL M conducted the counseling on 25 June 2014 and informed him that he had 30 minutes to leave his office area. He requested 2 hours to pack up his belongings and COL M granted his request. f. His reputation was compromised before he arrived as the Brigade S-4 due to disparaging remarks made by CPT S to CPT P about his character/work performance. On 30 September 2013, CPT J S sent a text message to CPT M S who worked for him, stating "Well add another in [to] the applicant's list of dumb s ." g. COL M blamed him for the problems in Support Operations Distribution. However, he never gave him the opportunity to tell his side of the story. He had two written counseling statements showing CPT S was the poison in the distribution section and CPT S displayed negative behavior by bad-mouthing everybody in the shop, and continued to do the same while they were in theater. h. He approached COL R _ about how LTC M treated him, not to mention the fact that LTC M was undermining his authority. COL R decided to move him to the battalion S-4 section. i. He believed the previous Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was flawed in that he had nine personnel who worked for him that were directly within his scope of responsibility, yet only four were interviewed. He felt he, as a Black officer, was used to completely exonerate a Caucasian senior noncommissioned officer who had done something wrong. j. Upon his return from suspension of his duties as the Sustainment Brigade S-4 on or about 4 April 2014, CPT P was less than professional again. CW3 I arrived in theater on or about 3 March 2014 and the SHARP Program allegations were levied against him on 6 March 2014. The problem was caused by preconceived notions and eventually, when the SHARP Program allegation were unfounded, the undue command influence ensured there was a finding of a toxic leadership. He believes he was being used as a scapegoat or fall guy by the DCO for improving the Army and creating an environment that is conducive for female Soldiers. It was apparent that he was marked for elimination because of the successful Commander's Inquiry he requested into the actions of the COL K R . k. He feels he has been ostracized by the DCO and the DCO has used his platform and authority to make him a non-entity and make him appear to be substandard person and officer. On or about 7 February 2014, the DCO went to his office, yelling at him for some property accountability issues that generated a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Lost. He conducted some research and found out that it was the Brigade Supply Operations Officer who had supervision of the operation and not the Brigade S-4. l. When the DCO went back to COL R to let him know it was not the his fault, it did not make that much difference because COL R had already embarrassed him. It seemed that COL R wanted to believe everything that was negative about him. m. He has lost a lot from the time he deployed to theater, to his redeployment in July 2014, until now. He is fighting for is his name, his character, to not lose any more than what he has already lost, to eradicate the permanent stigma on his reputation, and not to lose his career from false allegations. The allegations made against him on or about 16 June 2014 were an attack on his character. n. He asks that the 10th Sustainment Brigade Command not be allowed to exercise gross manifestation of injustice with impunity. He believes an examination of the command climate would reveal inconsistencies in the 10th Sustainment Brigade, as well as an environment of fear and coercion and reprisal. He wants justice. 14. An email from applicant to CPT E B. S , dated 18 February 2015, states: a. He never at any given time told CPT E B. S that he prefers to submit another rebuttal. The applicant stated he did not want to inform his lawyer or anybody of such another rebuttal because the rebuttal he sent will stand from his vantage point. He has not done anything wrong. b. Immaterial of whether there are 15 or 20 witnesses making statements that was choreographed for testimony and corroboration his position remains the same. 15. The memorandum from the applicant to HRC, dated 28 February 2015, subject: Request Retention, restates the same information as stated to the Commanding General, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), on 10 February 2015. 16. A letter from E I , dated 6 March 2015, states: a. He is presently assigned to the 55th Contracting Squadron, Offutt Air Force Base, NE, and he has known the applicant since June 2014 when he worked with him alongside with CPT S P and CPT D P . b. CPT P and CPT P could not or were unable or unwilling to follow simple procedures. They both enjoyed the privilege of replacing a lieutenant who was probably the most dedicated and outstanding brigade contracting OIC that he had the privilege to work with in his 1.5 years working the Joint Air Reserve Base process. c. He performed a staff assistance visit to educate/train the brigade cell as the evolving decreasing future needs. He was met with downright hostility and disrespect when he tried to explain the process to both CPT P and CPT P . d. He also was asked whether he had any feedback about what the applicant was asking CPT P to change in the contract. He answered, "No, but at one point I did get a chance to explain the decreasing contract requirement process to the S4." He believed the S-4 was able to understand the decreasing requirement process. The S-4 may have tried to get the brigade contacting cell to do a better job in generating the contracting Joint Air Reserve Base documents. e. As a result of CPT P and CPT P 's unprofessional duty performance and lack of attempt to justify and properly document their requirement, it was his duty to recommend to table/cut the requirement until proper documentation was received. He believed he was qualified to do so given his 22 years as an Air Force Comptroller, 15 years as an Air Force Civilian Contracting Officer, 2.5 years in a deployed environment, and 1.5 years working as the Contracting Subject Matter Expert for the 1st and 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command Joint Air Reserve Base, but mostly because it was his duty to do so. 17. The email from the Department of Defense Hotline Team, dated 13 March 2015, states that based on a thorough review of the information provided, there does not appear to be a sufficient basis for the Department of Defense Hotline to initiate an inquiry. 18. The Inspector General Action Request initiated by the applicant, dated 20 March 2015, states: a. He was accused of sexual harassment on 6 March by a (black female CPT); it was unfounded. At the completion of the investigation on 26 March 2014, the investigating officer determined he created a hostile environment based on the witnesses who the Judge Advocate General told the investigating officer were relevant to the investigation. This was done with the direction and supervision of COL M R. M . b. A complaint being condescending was made against him on 16 June 2014 by a (white female CW3); no investigation was conducted to substantiate this claim. Yet, he was relieved for cause. He redeployed on 22 July 2014. A BOI convened on 21 January and the board decided to separate him from the U.S. Army. The transcript from the hearing was sent to his civilian attorney on 2 February 2015. He prepared his rebuttal himself and sent it to his lawyer and his lawyer forwarded it to CPT S P on 10 February 2015. On 11 February 2015 the BOI packet was sent to the division. On 12 February 2015, CPT S started contacting him and speaking to him for over 30 minutes about withdrawing his rebuttal so his lawyer could resubmit it. CPT S suggested MAJ K , the Trial Defense Service Judge Advocate General lawyer, would do a better job in submitting the appropriate rebuttal in the appropriate length. CPT S proceeded to send an email to his attorney on 17 February 2015, which he responded to on 18 February 2015. On 2 March 2015, he requested to talk to MG T or Brigadier General (BG) A and he was afforded the opportunity to talk to BG A . BG A was supposed to get back to the applicant, but he has not heard from him to date. 19. On 26 June 2015 based on the BOI recommendation and subsequent Ad Hoc Review Board recommendation, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the U.S. Army based on substandard performance of duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) with an honorable characterization of service. 20. He was honorably discharged on 26 July 2015 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a. Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 shows he was separated for substandard performance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. The Board considered the allegations within the applicant’s statement about be reprised against, however, the Board concluded there was insufficient corroborating evidence submitted by the applicant which would reflect there was an error or injustice. For that reason, the Board recommended denying the applicant’s request for relief. To remove his relief for cause OER and to change his narrative reason for discharge. 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. 5/28/2019 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 3-54 states a relief-for-cause OER is required when an officer is relieved for cause, regardless of the rating period involved (for example, information pertaining to a previous reporting period that did not come to light until a later rating period). "Relief for Cause" is defined as an early release of an officer from a specific duty or assignment directed by superior authority and based on a decision that the officer has failed in his or her performance of duty. In this regard, duty performance will consist of the completion of assigned tasks in a competent manner and compliance at all times with the accepted professional officer standards consisting of attributes and competencies as part of the Leadership Requirements Model. b. Paragraph 4.4 states alleged errors and illegalities in a rated Soldier's evaluation report may be brought to the commander's or commandant's attention by the rated soldier or anyone authorized access to report (see paragraph 1-11). The primary purpose of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record. A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at Headquarters, Department of the Army. However, in these after-the-fact cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record (see paragraph 3-36 provides restrictions on modifications to previously submitted evaluations already accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army). The provisions of Army Regulation 15-6 do not normally apply to inquiries of this type. However, the commander or commandant may determine that the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6 apply in specific instances. 3. Army Regulation 20-1 (Inspector General Activities and Procedures) prescribes policy and procedures concerning the mission and duties of The Inspector General. The IG records are protected documents that contain sensitive and confidential information and advice. Army IG records are any written or recorded IG work-product created during the course of an IG assistance inquiry, inspection, investigative inquiry, or investigation. An IG record includes, but is not limited to, correspondence or documents received from a witness or a person requesting assistance, IG reports, Inspector General Network data, or other computer automatic data processing files or data, to include IG notes and working papers. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, Army Personnel Qualification Records, and Military Personnel Information Management as a work category. Paragraph 3-6 provides that once a document is placed in the Army Military Human Resource Record, it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-24 prescribes policies and procedures governing transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. Paragraph 4-2a states that while not all inclusive, when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be initiated as indicated below for substandard performance of duty: (3) failure to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of his or her grade. 6. Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) prescribes policy and procedural guidance relating to transition management. It establishes standardized policy for preparation of the DD Form 214. The specific instructions for item 28 states the narrative reason for separation is based on regulatory or other authority.