ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 8 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190005006 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reinstatement to active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Attorney Brief * Attorney Request * 10 x Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) * 2 x letters of recommendations * Findings of a 15-6 Investigation * 8 x character reference letters * Calendar Year 2016 Initial Tour Continuation Board * Memorandum for the Adjutant General Florida Army National Guard (ARNG) * Office Record Brief (ORB) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * ABCMR Case AR20180003058 * Affidavit FACTS: 1. The applicant, through his attorney, states: a. The attorney requests, on behalf of the applicant, correction of the applicant's military records specifically his reinstatement into the AGR program. In a memo dated 20 December 2016 from the Adjutant General (AG) of the Florida ARNG approved a recommendation for the applicant to be released from the AGR program. The action was appealed administratively to the AG in a lengthy memo dated 12 April 2017. The attorney's office never received an acknowledgement of the April 2017 correspondence. b. Due to the failure of that command to either acknowledge or respond to the applicant's appeal, he filed an appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Record (ABCMR), dated 25 January 2018. c. In a letter dated 9 January 2019, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) returned the applicant's filing stating he must first exhaust all administrative remedies. The failure of the AG to either acknowledge or respond to the applicant leaves him no other remedy than to refile his petition to the ABCMR. The applicant requests he be granted the relief requested for reinstatement into the AGR program. d. The AG's removal of the applicant from the AGR program was based on the recommendation of an AGR Initial Tour Continuation Board (ITCB) that was convened on 30 November 2016. The referral of matters concerning the applicant to the ITCB was made in a memo by the applicant's commanding officer, dated 29 November 2016 only one day earlier than the board met and ultimately decided the fate of the applicant. The processing of the action that resulted in the ultimate removal of the applicant from the AGR program should have required consideration at every level. e. As noted in the documents, particularly in the memo of the applicant's commanding officer, dated 29 November 2016, this recommendation to release the applicant from the AGR program was based on one issue, the wearing of awards that appeared to not have been properly authorized, the wearing of a combat patch, and the wearing of the Combat Action Badge (CAB). The AR 15-6 investigation substantiating the wearing of those awards is not attached as at no time did the applicant deny the wearing of those awards. On the contrary, he maintained at that time, and now, that his wearing of those awards was done with the understanding they were authorized, based on his documented service in a combat zone deployed to Afghanistan as the Scout Platoon Leader between 4 August 2010 and 17 June 2011. f. In response to the allegation of wearing unauthorized awards made by the applicant's commander, in the 29 November 2016 memo, the applicant submitted a lengthy response to include enclosures and letters of support regarding his honesty and character. There was no evidence of what, if any, consideration was given to this response and explanation by the applicant. Nor is there any evidence this was forwarded to the AG for his consideration before he made his decision. g. In response to the decision of the AG to release him from the AGR program, the applicant submitted a lengthy memorandum through counsel in April of 2017 requesting the AG reconsider his decision of 20 December 2016 approving the recommendation to release the applicant from the AGR program. No response was received from the AG. The only avenue of appeal that was left to the applicant is the petition to the Board. h. There is a substantial difference between a Soldier who wears awards he could not be entitled to wear, i.e. a combat patch or CAB, and a Soldier who has in fact served in a combat zone, under fire, and wears awards without ensuring that the proper administrative rules and procedures concerning their authorization have been followed. The case of the applicant is clearly the latter. i. As the allegations resulting in his release from the AGR program are simply two, and although similar they are distinct and will be dealt with separately. At the outset, however, it is necessary to establish the applicant takes full responsibility for his actions in not assuring proper authorization before wearing the awards in question. j. Regarding the first issue, the wearing of the CAB, the applicant provided a detailed discussion of how he came to believe at the time he was entitled to the award. He was a 19A Second Lieutenant (2LT). He was deployed to Afghanistan as the Scout Platoon Leader between 4 August 2010 and 17 June 2011. During their time in Afghanistan, they were attacked at night on their Forward Operating Base (FOB) by enemy combatants. The attack consisted of Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) and machine gun fire at the Northeast end of the FOB where they fired at their hard stand Tactical Operating Center (TOC) and the living area where his platoon and he were located. The gun fire came across the river from a town. Once they were engaged by the enemy his platoon conducted their battler drills to organize and maneuver out towards the enemy as the Quick Reactionary Force (QRF) element. As the trucks were being readied, he maneuvered to the hard stand TOC to gain further situational awareness. He and his platoon then proceeded to conduct a mounted QRF patrol into the town to locate and engage the enemy but came up with nothing. This attack happened toward the end of the deployment. After the attack, the entire FOB wrote out sworn statement about the incident and the CAB packets and sworn statements were sent up through their squadron. Some Soldiers were awarded their CABs while in country, and several more Soldiers were awarded their CABs during their demobilization. The remaining were told the other CABs were pending, due to be resubmitted. The CAB turned out to be miss keyed by the Readiness Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) in SIDPERs. As for the applicant's patch, it turned out to be a misunderstanding on his part. It was an administrative oversight of which the applicant admits he should have confirmed he was awarded the CAB through his records but at the time, he did not have a full understanding of how the records or SIDPERs worked. k. The applicant's OER through date of 27 February 2011 attests to the fact the applicant did, in fact, serve in a combat environment as claimed. His rater wrote "In Afghanistan he led over 74 partnered mounted and dismounted combat missions with zero incidents." The OER is provided for the Board's consideration. l. The qualifications of wearing of the CAB was laid out in Army Regulation 600-8- 22, dated 25 June 2015 and reads "the requirements for award of the CAB are branch and Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) immaterial. Assignment to a combat arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations, is not required to qualify for the CAB; however, it is not intended to award the CAB to all Soldiers who served in a combat zone or imminent danger area. Specific eligibility requirements include the award may be awarded to any Soldier. The Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized. The Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement." m. By his own testimony, as well as that documented in his OER and the regulation, the applicant or any other person so situated would have believed he was authorized and should have been awarded the CAB. This is particularly true as other Soldiers serving alongside him were awarded the CAB. Certainly if there was any doubt as to whether, based on the regulation, the applicant improperly wore an unauthorized CAB, it was incumbent upon the Army to establish that he did so with bad intent before making a determination adverse to the applicant. This was not done. The regulation also reads, "authority to award the CAB is delegated to regional medical center commanders receiving casualties directly from the wartime theater." Apparently there are approval authorities, even outside the Soldier's direct chain of command that can authorize the wearing of this award. The applicant did not begin wearing the CAB until he reviewed his ORB and saw the CAB was listed. n. There is a legal presumption of regularity in all Government records to include Army personnel records. The fact that the CAB was listed on the applicant's ORB, his personal knowledge of his meeting the qualifications for the award, buttressed by the wording on his OERs referenced, give rise to the strongest presumption that under the circumstances, the applicant acted both properly and with integrity. o. Additionally, in support of the actions of the applicant being authorized to wear the CAB are two memos written at that time by field grade officers far senior to him. On 15 December 2011, a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) wrote "The applicant also participated in Operation Bullwhip, the largest air assault mission in the 101st Afghan campaign. In this operation, the applicant demonstrated his ability to lead multi-national forces in successful combat operations." An Air Force general wrote on 13 December 2011, "The applicant led a combined air-assault mission to an observation post deep within enemy controlled terrain. Hand selected for this task, the applicant was in charge of French, Afghan and American Combat troops who accomplished this mission with zero casualties." The letters were provided to the Board for their consideration. p. The second violation that resulted in the recommendation that the applicant be released from the AGR program was wearing the 101st Airborne Division patch as his right shoulder sleeve insignia. In his response to this the applicant stated, as a First Lieutenant (1LT), he was not an experienced administrative officer and he should have made more of an effort to ensure, he was authorized to wear the 101st Airborne combat patch. He was to understand that he was authorized to wear the patch of any unit he supported while in a combat zone. While deployed, they wore the "Red Bull" patch. Some of them wore the 101st patch. He was told by a fellow Lieutenant they were authorized either. His unit wore a mixture of both patches. His troop and parts of his squadron wore the 101st patch. q. Army Regulation 670-1, Chapter 21-17 provides guidance for the wearing of the patch. The basic qualification is written as Soldiers of all Army components who deploy during periods of service designated for wear of the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia Former Wartime Service (SSI-FWTS) are authorized to wear the SSI-FWTS. There are no time-in-theater requirements for authorization to wear the SSI-FWTS. That regulation continues with lengthy guidance regarding unit and individual assignment and attachment when determining which shoulder patch to wear. It is not the purpose of this memo to determine which combat patches authorized for service in theater was the one the applicant was authorized to wear, but rather to establish his service would lead any reasonable person to conclude he was authorized the wear of a combat patch. r. The character and career of the applicant has been rated as stellar. A review of his OERs attests to not only his performance, but his character and honesty. Every one of his first six OERs written under the old system rate him in the highest category "Best Qualified" Correspondingly, the next four OERs written under the current system rated him as highly and most qualified. s. Most importantly is his most recent OER for the period of 31 March 2016 through 30 March 2017. In that OER his rater says the applicant was everything they expected from Today's officer. He continually looked for ways to develop himself, his peers, and most important his unit. His senior rater stated the applicant's performance during the rated period was outstanding. Without question, he was among the top 25 percent of the 32 commanders he senior rated. The applicant created a command environment which resulted in excellent cohesion and esprit 'de corps throughout the troop. The applicant was a first-rate leader who had to be in command of Soldiers. Promote at the first available opportunity. This OER was given during the rating period in which the command was recommending he be released from the AGR program. t. The most important fact is any mistake the applicant made was through neglect, neglect to follow-up on the procedures involved in the awarding of the CAB and which combat patch he was authorized to wear. Equally important is the fact the applicant has taken full responsibility for his negligence in wearing the awards in question at the time. u. Numerous officers have come forward in support of the applicant. Each letter should be read in their entirety, and have been provided for the Board's consideration. The letters give witness to an officer who selflessly served under trying circumstances. The statement of a LTC, buttresses the fact the applicant was meeting the requirements to wear the CAB, but also attested to his ability to function in a combat environment. v. In addition to letters from officers, the applicant has received letters of positive endorsements from a number of NCOs, which have been provided for the Board's consideration. One of the letters verifies combat service of the applicant. The NCO received the CAB for his actions serving with the applicant and testified the applicant was also submitted for the award. It was unfortunate there was no unit follow-up to ensure the uniform awarding of the award. w. One of the most telling letters describing the applicant is from a mother of a deceased Soldier whom the applicant served as the assistance officer at the time of the Soldier's death. In the letter, the mother details the caring attitude and the extra steps far beyond what was required the applicant took at the time of the family's loss. x. An overall picture of the applicant's service, awards, to include service in combat is established by his ORB which is included for the Board's consideration. The applicant, through his attorney, respectfully requests based, on the extensive matters presented, the Board grant the relief requested. The applicant's record both in garrison and in a combat environment has been endorsed in the strongest terms by officers to include a general officer. 2. The applicant's service records contain the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. A DD Form 214, which shows: * in block 2, he was a member of the ARNG * in block 4a, the applicant was a Captain (CPT) * in block 12a, he entered on active duty on 19 February 2014 * in block 12b, he was as released from active duty on 19 April 2017 * in block 13, it is void of the applicant receiving the CAB * in block 28, the narrative reason for separation was non-retention on active duty b. Orders 054-001, published by the Florida National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General, dated 23 February 2017, which shows the applicant was relieved from active duty in the AGR status, effective 19 April 2017. c. Order 019-013-RE61-23, published by US Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 1 March 2019, which shows the applicant was appointed in the Regular Army of the United States effective the date of his oath of office. d. An NGB Form 22 (National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service), which shows the applicant was discharged from the ARNG effective 9 April 2019, for appointment in the Regular Army. e. The applicant's service record is void of documentation showing a 15-6 investigation or the Officer Initial Tour Continuation Board. 3. The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. A DA Form 67-9 (OER) from 22 March 2010 through 22 August 2010, which shows: * the applicant was a 2LT * he was a platoon leader * he was rated at outstanding performance, must promote and best qualified b. A DA Form 67-9 from 23 August 2010 through 27 February 2011, which shows: * the applicant was a 2LT * he was a scout platoon leader * he was rated as satisfactory performance, promote and best qualified c. A DA Form 67-9 from 28 February 2011 through 13 July 2011, which shows: * the applicant was a 1LT * he was a scout platoon leader * he was rated as outstanding performance must promote and best qualified d. A letter of recommendation from a LTG of the Air Force, dated 13 December 2011, which states he provided his strongest recommendation for the applicant for assignment as the Squadron S4. The applicant led a combat air assault mission into enemy controlled terrain. He also led the team who arrested the most notorious Improvised Explosive Device (IED) maker in the district. e. A letter of recommendation from a LTC, dated 15 December 2011, which states the applicant was recommended for the Squadron S4 position. The LTC deployed with the applicant to Afghanistan. The applicant demonstrated his ability to build strong teams, develop complex plans, and execute both implied and directed tasks without fault. He fully endorsed the applicant's selection to any Squadron/Battalion staff and would serve with him again in combat. f. A DA Form 67-9 from 14 July 2011 through 13 July 2012, which shows: * the applicant was a 1LT * he was a platoon leader * he was rated as outstanding performance, promote and best qualified g. A DA Form 67-9 from 14 July 2012 through 3 December 2012, which shows: * the applicant was a 1LT * he was a platoon leader * he was rated as outstanding performance, promote and best qualified h. A DA Form 87-9 (OER) from 4 December 2012 through 3 December 2013, which shows: * he was a CPT * he was the Battalion S4 * he was rated as Outstanding Performance must promote and best qualified i. A DA Form 67-10-1 from 4 December 2013 through 3 December 2014, which shows: * he was a CPT * his component was AGR * he was a Plans Officer/AGR S1 * he was rated proficient and highly qualified j. A DA Form 67-10-1 from 3 December 2014 through 1 April 2015, which shows: * he was a CPT * his component was AGR * he was a Plans Officer/AGR S1 * he was rated as excels and most qualified k. A DA Form 67-10-1 from 1 April 2015 through 30 March 2016, which shows: * he was a CPT * his component was AGR * he was a troop commander * he was rated as excels and most qualified l. A memorandum Subject: Finding and Recommendations for Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation of the applicant, dated 15 August 2016, which states: * the investigating officer (IO) looked into the allegation regarding the applicant's unauthorized wearing of a CAB and the SSI-FWTS insignia * all allegations concerning the applicant were substantiated * the IO recommended the applicant be issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, relieved of command and given a relief for cause OER, not be continued in the AGR program upon the expiration of his initial tour m. A character reference from a CPT, dated 24 November 2016, which states: * the author served 10 years in the United States military * he met the applicant in August 2014 * the applicant demonstrated integrity since his upbringing as a young man * the applicant embodied his assignments, upheld a high expectation of standards, and lived the Army values * in the offense of the applicant falsifying signatures, there needed to be an in depth unbiased investigation * he was aware of the repercussions the applicant could have been given * he didn't believe the applicant's actions merited the punishment n. A character reference from a 1LT, dated 28 November 2016, which states: * the applicant displayed integrity and professionalism to the highest standard * he stayed up late hours counseling the author and other soldiers * she had great respect for the applicant and believed him to be a professional, dedicated, and selfless leader o. A character reference from a First Sergeant, dated 28 November 2016, which states: * he knew the applicant for over 20 months * Soldiers recognized the applicant's leadership, his steadfast adherence to the Army Values and strive to emulate his example * the applicant was never deliberately malicious or immoral in his actions p. A character reference from a Sergeant First Class (SFC), dated 28 November 2016, which states: * he knew the applicant for over 8 years * he developed an enduring respect for the applicant's work ethic and leadership abilities * he believed the applicant was one of the most honorable men * the applicant would never risk jeopardizing his career over an integrity violation q. A character reference from a SFC, dated 29 November 2016, which states: * the author sought the applicant's advice as a senior leader * he believed the applicant's displaying of unauthorized uniform awards was a misunderstanding * he did not believe the applicant's punishment met the crime r. A memorandum from the Florida ARNG AG, dated 20 December 2016, which concurred with the recommendation of the ITCB for the applicant. s. A memorandum from the Florida ARNG AGR Manager, dated 21 December 2016, which states an AGR ITCB was convened on 30 November 2018 to review the performance of AGR Soldiers and their potential for continued active service. The applicant's record was reviewed and the AG concurred with the board's recommendation to release the applicant from the AGR program at the end of his current term. There was no appeal process and the AG was the final approval authority. Along with the memorandum were letters of recommendations for the applicant to continue his AGR tour. t. A DA Form 67-10-1, from 31 March 2016 through 30 March 2017, which shows: * he was a CPT * his component was AGR * he was a troop commander * he was rated proficient and highly qualified u. A memorandum from the applicant's attorney to the Florida ARNG AG, on behalf of the applicant, dated 12 April 2017, which states: (1) He respectfully requested the AG reconsider his decision of 20 December 2016 approving the recommendation to release the applicant from the AGR program. A Colonel made a recommendation the applicant not be allowed to continue service beyond his initial AGR tour. The reason for the recommendation was based on the results of an administrative investigation that substantiated the applicant wore two unauthorized accruements on his uniform. (2) The findings of the 15-6 investigation, dated 15 August 2016 substantiated the applicant wore a CAB and a 101st Airborne Division patch as his right shoulder sleeve insignia without proper approval. Such violations, if deliberate, would be totally out of character for the applicant. (3) The applicant had been an outstanding officer, serving in the AGR both in the United States and abroad. The applicant, based on his superior accomplishments as referenced in his OERs, was selected as a troop commander. He was entrusted with taking over half of his men to Guatemala where they trained the Guatemalan Army in reconnaissance tactics. For this action, he received a superlative OER. (4) The recommendations for release from the AGR program were based solely on his wearing a CAB and the 101st Airborne Division patch. The circumstances surrounding these events went back to when the applicant was a 2LT deployed to Afghanistan as the Scout Platoon Leader from August 2010 to July 2011. It was uncontroverted that the applicant served in Afghanistan as a Scout Platoon Leader, and actually was engaged in combat. Both allegations are intertwined in time and circumstances involving the applicant serving under while taking and returning hostile fire. (5) In analyzing the issue regarding wearing of the CAB, the applicant provided a lengthy memo to the president of the board, dated 15 November 2016 in which he detailed his combat action in which he was involved. The applicant's OER through date of 27 February 2011 attested to the fact the applicant did, in fact, serve in a combat environment as claimed. That OER reads, in part, "in Afghanistan, he led over 75 partnered mounted and dismounted combat missions with zero incidents." (6) The qualifications for wearing of the CAB are laid out in Army Regulation 600-8-22, dated 25 June 2015. By his own testimony as well as that documented in his OER, the applicant, or any other person so situated, would have believed he was authorized and should have been awarded the CAB. Certainly, if there was any doubt as to whether, based on the regulation, the applicant improperly wore the CAB, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to explore this. He failed to do so. Interestingly, the regulation reads, "Authority to award the CAB is also delegated to regional medical center commanders receiving casualties directly from the wartime theater." Apparently there are approval authorities, even outside the Soldier's direct chain of command that can authorize the wearing of the award. As noted in his statement of 25 October 2016, wherein the applicant stated he did not begin wearing the CAB until he reviewed his ORB and saw the CAB listed. (7) The second violation that resulted in the recommendation the applicant be released from the AGR program was his wearing of the 101st Airborne Division patch as his right shoulder sleeve insignia. The applicant wrote an explanation of his error. (8) Army Regulation 670-1 provides guidance for wearing of the patch. His service would lead any reasonable person to conclude he was authorized the wear of a combat patch. This like the wearing of the CAB is important in making a determination as to the future career of the applicant in regards to the issue of integrity. (9) At no point in his career was the applicant's integrity questioned. His OER through date 30 March 2016 reads, the applicant was a sound morally strong officer who always put the needs of the organization over his own. He was an outstanding leader who developed trust with his commander. At no time did the applicant make any attempt to hide his actions in wearing the awards in question, nor did he do anything but fully cooperate when informed the awards might not be authorized, and he immediately ceased in wearing them when this was brought to his attention. (10) As a result of the two transgressions, the applicant received a Brigade letter or reprimand and was relieved from command. Receiving the letter of reprimand and being relieved from his command, had a serious impact upon the career of the applicant. A command climate survey from the applicant's command indicated he had the capability to perform admirably. It was requested the applicant be given the opportunity, by continuing to serve in the AGR program. In the alternative it was suggested the applicant be allowed to remain in the AGR program for a period of one year to prove himself as the officer he was. (11) It was suggested as the AG examined the matters, he would be able to provide a just and reasonable solution for all parties concerned. In that regard, the attorney suggested the probationary period for the applicant in order for the AG and the applicant's superiors may further evaluate the applicant while providing him the opportunity to continue to give honorable service to the Army. v. An ORB of the applicant, dated 23 February 2017, which does not list the CAB as one of his awards. w. A letter of recommendation from a COL in the Florida ARNG, dated 4 December 2017, which states: * the purpose of the letter was to attest to the character of the applicant * she knew the applicant for four years * the applicant became her Executive Officer * she relied on him heavily * she was the president of the AGR retention board that disapproved his extension in the AGR program * the board did not have any other punitive elections besides discharge from the AGR program * since the incident the applicant volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan * the situation looked much worse on paper than it was in reality * the applicant should have had a more thorough understanding of the issues * but it was her opinion that it was not an integrity violation but a small misstep in decision making x. A DD Form 214 for the period ending 27 July 2018, which shows the applicant served in Afghanistan from 21 July 2017 through 11 June 2018. The reason for his release was completion of required active service. y. A letter from ARBA, dated 9 January 2019, which states the applicant's initial application was returned for failing to exhaust all administrative remedies. z. An affidavit from the officer manager of the applicant's attorney, dated 11 March 2019, which states on 12 April 2017, she mailed a memo of approximately four pages to the AG of the Florida ARNG regarding the applicant's request for continuation of the applicant in the AGR program. Since their office never received a response from the AG, the applicant, through his attorney, filed an appeal with the ABCMR on or about 25 January 2018. aa. An undated character letter written by a Sergeant, which states: * she knew the applicant for 6 years * they worked together in the Florida ARNG * the applicant displayed the highest levels of integrity * she would work with the applicant any day bb. An undated character letter written by a Staff Sergeant (SSG), which states: * the applicant was the kind of officer who would get his hands dirty and join the fight * the applicant instills the leadership mentality * he believed the applicant was a man of integrity cc. An undated character letter from a retired SSG, which states: * the author was from the Iowa ARNG and deployed with the applicant * the author was awarded the CAB for the attack on their base on 19 April 2011 * he received the CAB at Fort McCoy during their demobilization * the applicant was on the ground during the attack * his platoon was sent out immediately after the attack * the applicant was submitted for the CAB along with the rest of the troop dd. An undated character letter from the mother of a deceased Soldier, which states: * the author met the applicant in September 2014 after the suicide of her son * the applicant was always professional, respectful, and compassionate * the applicant was genuinely sincere in his empathy and compassion for their family * he is a man of exceptional moral character * he was genuinely kind and compassionate and didn't show the utmost respect and integrity * the applicant was a good man and the US Army was lucky to have him 4. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 16 July 2020, from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, National Guard Bureau. The advisor recommended disapproval of the applicant's request. The applicant did not identify any discrepancy or injustice that led to his removal; his request was solely a request for the board to provide leniency. The request to be reinstated in the AGR program cannot be easily accomplished. The applicant maintains he did not possess the requisite administrative knowledge to know he was not authorized the wear of the CAB and SSI-FWTS but this does not appear to be valid. As a platoon leader who mobilized and conducted a combat deployment, he would have been aware of the importance of orders and authorization. A copy of the complete advisory opinion has been provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 5. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion on 24 July 2020, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. He did not respond. 6. See applicable references below. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board found insufficient evidence to grant relief. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request and contentions, through counsel. 2. The applicant requests reinstatement into the AGR program. The applicant, through counsel, contends, in effect: * that the applicant did not receive due process through the ITCB or from the approving authority. * the ITCB was hasty in its decision and did not consider the applicant’s letters of support/character references. * the approving authority did not consider his request for reconsideration of his removal from the AGR program. * the applicant was unaware that he was not authorized to wear the awards because he was unfamiliar with iPERMS. 3. The Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s removal from the AGR program. a. Per regulation, AGR Soldiers in a career status are not guaranteed continuation on active service or in any particular status and may be involuntarily separated for misconduct, inefficiency, medical and other reasons. The Board found that the preponderance of the evidence supports that the applicant misrepresented his award authorizations when he wore the CAB and SSI without authority. This misconduct is the cause for the applicant’s relief from AGR status. b. Per regulation, the Adjutant General of the State is the final separation/release authority for AGR Soldiers. Per that authority, orders 054-001 indicate that the FLARNG Adjutant General relieved the applicant from the AGR program. c. The Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant did not commit the misconduct for which he was removed from AGR status. The applicant’s misconduct was substantiated by an independent investigation and his command found the misconduct of such a nature as to warrant the applicant’s relief from the AGR program. d. The Board agreed with the National Guard Bureau advisory opinion that the applicant’s claim of administrative ignorance does not stand up to scrutiny. At the time of the investigation, the applicant was a captain, with years of experience. As a captain and company commander, he was responsible for properly and honestly representing his authorized awards to set the example for his Soldiers. 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: National Guard Regulation 600-5 (The Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program Title 32, Full Time National Guard Duty (FTNGD) Management) prescribes procedures for selecting, assigning, using, managing, and administering Army National Guard of the United States personnel serving on Full Time National Guard Duty (FTNGD) in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status under the provisions of Title 32, United States Code (USC), Section 502(f) (32 USC 502(f)). a. AGR Soldiers in a career status are not guaranteed continuation on active service or in any particular status, but must be continually managed to ensure they perform in accordance with applicable regulations and policies (involuntary separations for misconduct, inefficiency, medical and other reasons may still occur pursuant to this and other applicable regulations). b. Release from the AGR Program as prescribed by this chapter relates to release from FTNGD. The Adjutant General of the State is the final separation/release authority for AGR Soldiers. Retention will not be directed when release from FTNGD or separation from the ARNG is mandatory under this chapter or any other applicable Army or National Guard regulation. c. Commanders and supervisors may initiate involuntary release from active duty for any reason permitted by Army or ARNG regulations for separation or withdrawal of Federal Recognition, including but not limited to, when a Soldier’s duty performance or persistent inefficiency hinders the administration, operation, or training of the National Guard and when corrective action or rehabilitation efforts have not provided the necessary results. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190005006 16 1