ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190013351 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel: a. reconsideration of his previous request for removal of the referred DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 2 May 2002 through 31 March 2003 from his Army Military Human Resource Record; b. correction of his records to show nonrated time between August 2009 and June 2011; c. promotion reconsideration to the rank/grade of colonel (COL)/O-6 by a special selection board; d. any other records corrections by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR); and e. a personal appearance hearing before the Board. 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) * Letter, Applicant, dated 16 September 2019 (requesting nonrated time) * Letter and Memorandum, Counsel, dated 15 October 2019 * Enlisted Service Records, 1980-1987 * Officer Service Records, 1987-2014 * Memorandum, Commander, Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery Regiment, dated 3 March 2003, subject: Letter of Concern * DD Form 67-9 (OER), Referred Report for period 2 May 2002 through 31 March 2003 * Memorandum from the Commander, Headquarters, 3rd Brigade, 42nd Infantry Division (Mechanized), dated 20 October 2003, subject: OER Referral (2 May 2002-31 March 2003) (Applicant) * Memorandum, Applicant, dated 5 November 2003, subject: Receipt of Referred OER * Memorandum, COL G____, Jr., dated 29 January 2004, subject: Supporting Statement for OER Appeal of Applicant * Memorandum, Applicant, undated, subject: Detailed Statements * Orders 082-1021, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Promotion, dated 22 March 2004 * Memorandum, Applicant, undated, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal (2 May 2002-31 March 2003) (Applicant) with Officer Special Review Board Docket Number AR20070018110, dated 6 March 2008 * Enclosure 1 – Orders A-10-928739, Ordered to Active Duty, dated 21 October 2009 * National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated 7 November 2009 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 7 November 2009 * Orders A-12-933473, Retained on Active duty, dated 10 December 2009 and Orders A-12-933473A01, dated 14 January 2010 amended Orders A-12-933473, dated 10 December 2009 * Enclosure 2 – Orders 022-2214, Released from Active Duty, dated 22 January 2010 * DD Form 214, Released from Active Duty, dated 2 February 2010 * Enclosure 3 – Orders C-04-005048, Reassignment Order, dated 1 April 2010 * Orders A-07-020155, Ordered to Active Duty, dated 12 July 2010 * Orders 274-2219, Released from Active Duty, dated 1 October 2010 and Orders 333-2202, dated 29 November 2010 amended Orders 274-2219, Released from Active Duty, dated 1 October 2010 * Enclosure 4 – Orders 10-321-00014, Reassignment Order, dated 17 November 2010 * Orders C-12-018597, Reassignment Order, dated 28 December 2010 and Orders C-12-018597R, dated 12 January 2011 amended Orders C-12-018597, dated 28 December 2010 * Enclosure 5 – Orders A-12-033571A01, dated 1 February 2011 amended Orders A-12-033571, dated 7 December 2010 * DD Form 214, Released from Active Duty, dated 2 February 2011 * Orders A-03-104864, Ordered to Active Duty, dated 8 March 2011 * Enclosure 6 – Orders A-04-107918, Ordered to Active Duty, dated 15 April 2011 and Orders A-04-107918A01, dated 30 November 2011 amended Orders A-04-107918, dated 15 April 2011 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 6 June through 9 December 2011 * Orders A-12-127577, Ordered to Active Duty, dated 12 December 2011 * Orders A-05-208073, Reassignment Order, dated 3 May 2012 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 10 December 2011 through 4 May 2012 * Orders A-06-211426, Retained on Active Duty, dated 27 June 2012 and Orders A-06-211426A02, dated 26 September 2012 amended Orders A-06-211426, dated 27 June 2012 * DD Form 214, Released from Active Duty, dated 10 January 2013 * Orders A-02-302442, Ordered to Active Duty, dated 13 February 2013 * Orders A-02-302442A01, dated 12 February 2014 amended Orders A-02-302442, dated 13 February 2013 * Orders A-02-302442A02, dated 13 February 2014 amended Orders A-02-302442A01, dated 12 February 2014 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 5 May 2012 through 17 March 2014 * DD Form 149, dated 20 February 2014 * Memorandum, U.S. Physical Disability Agency, dated 7 September 2007, subject: Army Approval of the Physical Evaluation Board Action Under Provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), Applicant * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 1 April 2003 through 31 March 2004 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 1 April 2004 through 14 October 2004 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 15 October 2004 through 14 October 2005 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 15 October 2005 through 30 September 2006 * DD Form 67-9 (OER) for period 1 September 2007 through 31 August 2008 * Army Board for Correction of Military Records Response, dated 22 May 2014 * Orders C-08-410735, The Retired Reserve, dated 4 August2014 * DD Form 214, Released from Active Duty, dated 30 September 2014 * Orders C10-498657, Retired List, dated 27 October 2014 * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 7 and 8 May 2015 * Referral for Civilian Medical Health Care, 30 July 1018 * National Guard Bureau Form 23B (Army National Guard (ARNG) Retirement Points History Statement), dated 31 July 2018 REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing) or request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. Army Regulation 135-155 (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 commissioned and warrant officers of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Paragraph 3-19 (Promotion Reconsideration Boards) states the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Office of Promotions (Reserve Components) may find that a "material error" caused the non-selection of an officer by a promotion board. That agency must first determine there was a fair risk that one or more of the evaluation reports that should have been seen by a board (based on the announced cutoff date) were missing from an officer's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 3. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files. a. Paragraph 1-1 stated this regulation set forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. b. Paragraph 1-4 stated the objectives of this regulation were to apply fair and just standards to all Soldiers; protect the rights of individual Soldiers and, at the same time, permit the Army to consider all available relevant information when choosing Soldiers for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility; to prevent adverse personnel action based on unsubstantiated derogatory information or mistaken identity; to provide a means of correcting injustices if they occur; and, to ensure that Soldiers of poor moral character are not continued in service or advanced to positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility. c. Chapter 3 (Unfavorable Information in Official Personnel Files) stated an administrative memorandum of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier. The memorandum must be referred to the recipient and the referral must include and list applicable portions of investigations, reports, or other documents that serve as a basis for the reprimand. Statements or other evidence furnished by the recipient must be reviewed and considered before a filing determination is made. d. Paragraph 3-4 stated filing of non-punitive administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure in official personnel files, such as a memorandum of reprimand, may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer-level authority and will be filed in the performance folder. The direction for filing will be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the memorandum. If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF, the recipient's submissions are to be attached. Once filed in the OMPF, the reprimand and associated documents are permanent unless removed under the provisions of chapter 7 (Appeals). e. Paragraph 7-2a (Appeals for Removal of OMPF Entries) stated once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence, are not acceptable, and will not be considered. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management Records), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF, Military Personnel Records Jacket, Career Management Individual File, Army Personnel Qualification Records, and Military Personnel Information Management as a category. Paragraph 2-4 stated that once properly filed in the OMPF, a document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from a folder or moved to another part of the folder unless directed by the ABCMR, Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board, or other authorized agency. 5. Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, prescribed the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system. a. Paragraph 3-5 (The Communication Process) stated the support form communication process is characterized by initial and follow-up face-to-face counselings between the rater and the rated officer. This process is used to achieve the purposes of the DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form). The initial face-to-face counseling assists in developing the elements of the rated officer's duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives. The follow-up counseling enhances mission-related planning, assessment, and performance development. Through the communication process, the rated officer is made aware of the specific nature of his/her duty and may influence the decision on what should be accomplished. b. Paragraph 3-6 (Rated Officer Responsibilities) stated: (1) Shortly after assuming duties, the rater will provide the rated officer with copies of his/her support form, and the senior rater's support form. Within the first 30 days of the evaluation period, the rated officer will draft his/her support form, normally using the rater/senior rater support forms provided as input, in preparation for the initial face-to-face counseling with the rater. The rated officer will discuss duties, responsibilities, and performance objectives with the rater during this initial meeting. Correspondence and telephone conversations may be used as alternatives because of geographic separation; followed by a face-to-face discussion at the earliest opportunity. Submitting written performance objectives for approval at the beginning of the rating period without a follow-up face-to- face counseling is an unacceptable shortcut. Rated officers serving under dual supervision will have face-to-face discussion with both supervisors. The rated officer will verify the face-to-face discussion by dating and initialing Part III of the working copy of the support form. (2) The rated officer will maintain a working copy of the support form with duties and objectives throughout the rating period. The rated officer will make additions or deletions to his/her duties and objectives on the working copy as changes occur and will discuss any changes to the working copy of the support form with the rater. Follow up face-to-face counselings are the most effective forum for these rater updates. Rated officers serving under dual supervision will develop and maintain separate working copies of their support form. (3) The rated officer will prepare the final support form at the end of the rating period. The rated officer will enter the dates of the initial and follow-up discussions from the working copy of the support form and reenter his/her initials. The final DA Form 67- 9-1 will be considered by the rating officials in preparing the DA Form 67-9. Rated officers serving under dual supervision prepare a final support form for both supervisors. c. Paragraph 3-7 (Rater Responsibilities) stated: (1) Shortly after the rated officer assumes duties, the rater will provide him/her with copies of the most recent rater and senior rater support forms. By doing this, the rater ensures the rated officer has the necessary input from his/her chain of command to properly determine and prioritize responsibilities and performance objectives. (2) At the beginning of the rating period, the rater will tell the rated officer what his/her complete rating chain is and ensure the correct rating chain is recorded on the DA Form 67-9-1. The rater will notify the rated officer of any applicable changes to the rating chain. The rater will use the official, published rating chain described in paragraph 1-4b and ensure that it remains current. (3) The rater will conduct a face-to-face counseling with the rated officer within the first 30 days of the rating period. This initial discussion will be focused on duties, responsibilities and performance objectives. Correspondence and telephone conversations may be used as an alternative because of geographic separation, followed by a face-to-face discussion at the earliest opportunity. Simply requiring the rated officer to submit written performance objectives at the beginning of the rating period and approving them without a follow-up face-to-face meeting is an unacceptable shortcut of this provision. (4) The rater will verify the initial face-to-face counseling by initialing Part III of the working copy of the support form and should forward a copy of the draft DA Form 67-9-1 to the senior rater for his/her approval and initials. (5) Throughout the rating period, the rater will conduct periodic follow-up face-to- face counseling with the rated officer. (a) The rater will ensure that changes to the duties and performance objectives are properly updated on the DA Form 67-9-1 in Part IV and initialed in Part III. (b) Once the DA Form 67-9-1 is initialed, the rater should forward the form to the senior rater for his/her verification and initials. (c) The rater will review the final DA Form 67-9-1 when preparing the DA Form 67-9. The duty description in Part III and the performance narrative in Part V of the DA Form 67-9 may include information from the rated officer's final DA Form 67-9-1. However, the choice of what to enter on the OER is the rater's. (d) The rater will reenter his/her initials in Part III of the final support form to verify the dates of the initial and follow-up face-to-face counselings. The rater will sign and date Part Va of the final support form, acknowledging he or she has reviewed it. Comments are optional, except to explain the delay or absence of the initial counseling. This is not the place to evaluate the rated officer, but is an appropriate place to address the accuracy of the rated officer's duty description, performance objectives, and contributions for the intermediate or senior rater. (e) The rater will forward the final support form, along with the OER, to the intermediate or senior rater. d. Paragraph 3-9 (Senior Rater Responsibilities) stated the senior rater is responsible to ensure each of his/her rated officers receives a copy of his/her support form. The senior rater will later review, approve and initial draft DA Form 67-9-1, Part III, when submitted to him/her after initial and follow-up face-to-face counselings. The senior rater will also review the completed DA Form 67-9-1 at the time he/she is preparing the OER. The narrative in Part Vllb of the DA Form 67-9 may be based in part on the rated officer's final DA Form 67-9-1. Finally, the senior rater will ensure the DA Form 67-9-1 is returned to the rated officer when the completed DA Form 67-9 is forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army. FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140003722 on 21 May 2014. 2. The applicant states the period August 2009 until June 2011 of his OER was nonrated time. The nonrated period prevented any chances for advancement, positions of greater responsibility, and attendance at the U.S. Army War College. a. In 2009, he resigned from the New York ARNG Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program to take a position in Iraq, specifically with no break in service. In November 2009, he reported to Fort Leavenworth with a follow-on assignment to the Continental United States (CONUS) Replacement Center at Fort Benning, GA (see enclosure 1). Just before deployment, he developed a pulmonary embolism in his lungs and a deep vein thrombosis in his right leg that resulted in his transfer to the Warrior Transition Unit until 2 February 2010. When he was discharged from the ARNG, he was placed in the USAR Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) (see enclosure 2). Until this transfer, his entire military career was in the New York ARNG. He was not familiar with the processes in the USAR or IRR. There are no branch managers in the ARNG like active duty or in the USAR, which created a gap in his record. Because he was unfamiliar with the administrative processes in the USAR and the IRR, it took him a few months to determine what his options were and who the appropriate branch manager was for the IRR. He found there was only one branch manager responsible for all IRR officers. b. He decided he would continue his military career in a traditional troop program unit until he could return to active duty. He was assigned to a unit located in West Hartford, CT, in April 2010 (see enclosure 3). His orders indicated a former address in New York, which was incorrect. His home of record was Hudson, FL. Even though he was in Florida, he was willing to accept a position in the unit until he could find a troop program unit closer to his home of record. The commander informed him she had no available positions within the unit; however, the group was going through an audit and he could not transfer, so he remained in the unit. It was in November 2010 before he was released from the unit (see enclosure 4). c. After being cleared by a doctor in December 2010, he received orders to report to the CONUS Replacement Center at Fort Benning, but as a result of his prior non- deployment, he was placed in a holding position at the CONUS Replacement Center pending a medical clearance for deployment to Afghanistan (see enclosure 4). He was at Fort Benning for 54 days before being declared non-deployable and released from active duty on 2 February 2011 (see enclosure 5). Again, he was placed in the IRR, but he was fortunate enough to return to active duty with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in June 2011 (see enclosure 6). He was able to stay on active duty for almost 3 years, which allowed him to retire with pay. d. He cannot say the gap in his record was the sole reason for his non-selection to COL, but he will say that from his understanding as a president of a promotion board, it did contribute to not being selected. When he was the board president, the senior Army advisor instructed the members to consider the officer record brief and note unexplained gaps in the officer's record. An incomplete record indicates either a lack of concern by the officer or other administrative issues which need attention. He was not only faced with nonrated time, but he was removed from the rolls while he was at the Fort Benning CONUS Replacement Center. He believes Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System) is clear on the procedure to document nonrated time. (Note: Army Regulation 623-3 superseded Army Regulation 623-105 effective 16 June 2006.) As a result of his mandatory removal date, he lost 2 years of possible service. 3. Counsel states: a. The applicant legally changed his last name from K____ to C____ in 2001. He is a retired USAR officer whose 33 years include active duty service in the Regular Army as well as service in the New York ARNG Active Guard Reserve and USAR. b. In January 2003, the applicant was selected as the Inspector General for the New York ARNG, an AGR position. He assumed the duties in April 2003. In October 2003, he received a referred OER from his rater at the time, LTC O____, covering his final rating period as the battalion S-3 from 5 May 2002 through 31 March 2003. c. Earlier in March 2003, LTC O____ sent the applicant a "Letter of Concern" to which he made reference in the referred OER. LTC O____ purported to write the letter to express his "dissatisfaction" with what he believed to be the applicant's "uncooperative, less than enthusiastic, and less than supportive approach" to LTC O____'s "guidance and directives." LTC O____ proceeded to describe six "examples" that he believed illustrated his allegations. d. Despite covering a rating period ending in March 2003, the referred OER was not forwarded to the applicant until 20 October 2003. On or about 5 November 2003, the applicant submitted a memorandum acknowledging receipt of the referred OER, requesting reconsideration of the appraisal, and commenting on its negative contents. He asserted that the referred OER was untimely, having been sent to him over 7 months after the end of the rating period. He offered evidence that supported a favorable mark for his emotional attributes and adamantly disputed that he displayed any "borderline insubordination," stating that "At no time did I fail to submit to authority or not complete the orders given to me in a timely manner to completion." Regarding the letter of concern, the applicant clarified that the letter focused entirely on a 3-4 week period in February 2003 when he was dealing with traumatic family issues concurrent with his job responsibilities that required extensive travel. e. Notably, the applicant provided additional relevant context for the referred OER. LTC O____ issued the letter of concern the day after the applicant had called him to explain that he had decided to accept a position as a detailed inspector general. The applicant raised the specter that the letter of concern was issued in retaliation for his decision to assume the detailed inspector general position. f. Sometime thereafter, the applicant submitted a letter, subject: "Detailed Statements," to the ARNG Readiness Center, arguing that the referred OER violated the provisions of Army Regulation 623-105, chapter 3. Specifically, he argued that LTC O____ failed to have a face-to-face interview with him within the first 30 days of the rating period and that he did not receive any counseling from LTC O____ until he accepted a new position as detailed inspector general. He further argued that his senior rater did not properly complete Part VII, which had caused a second OER to be drafted which, for unknown reasons, was never submitted for inclusion in his records. Further, he argued that the delay between the referred OER's through date and the date he actually received the report compromised his ability to seek redress through a commander's inquiry. The applicant's efforts did not lead to any permanent modification of the referred OER. He would later formally appeal the referred OER to the Army Special Review Board. g. The applicant was promoted to LTC/O-5 effective 20 August 2004. h. In the spring of 2006, the applicant suffered symptoms of a medical condition that was later diagnosed as a pulmonary embolism. It was deemed to have been incurred in the line of duty; he was processed through a medical evaluation board/physical evaluation board that found him fit for duty on 7 September 2007. He was subsequently returned to full duty and assigned as the Deputy Director of the Camp Smith Training Site, NY. i. On or about 21 September 2006, the applicant submitted an appeal of the referred OER to the Army Special Review Board. The applicant based his appeal on substantive inaccuracy. He argued that Lieutenant O____'s negative commentary violated Army Regulation 623-105, which required an evaluation for the entire rating period. He noted the OER was returned for corrections but was never filed in his records. j. On 6 March 2008, the Army Special Review Board acknowledged that the "evidence of record shows the OER was not processed in a timely manner nor was the corrected OER forwarded to be placed in his OMPF" and that the applicant had requested commander's inquiries, but there was no evidence of their outcome. Nonetheless, the Army Special Review Board's rationale for denial was clear that because the applicant was promoted to LTC and was still in the AGR program with the referred OER in his file, it "did not impact [his] subsequent promotion" and therefore relief was not recommended. k. In November 2009, the applicant left the ARNG and transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR) so he could seek an active duty position with the Regular Army. As a result, his Federal recognition was withdrawn pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3352 (renumbered to read Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12213). Around this time, he was passed over for selection to COL/O-6 the first time. l. In December 2009 while deployed, the applicant suffered another pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, and was subsequently placed in the Warrior Transition Unit on 10 December 2009 for a period of 60 days until February 2010. Thereafter, he was placed in the IRR where he would await medical clearance until June 2011. m. As the applicant explained, up until his placement in the IRR in February 2010, his entire career was with the New York ARNG and he had some degree of unfamiliarity with the administrative processes of the IRR. Ultimately, he decided he would continue his career in a traditional troop program unit until he could return to active duty. He was assigned to a troop program unit located in West Hartford, CT, in April 2010, but his home of record was. Notwithstanding the extreme geographic distance between his home of record and his unit, he was willing to accept the position in the unit until he could find a troop program unit closer to his home. The commander of the Connecticut troop program unit informed the applicant that she had no positions in the unit but could not transfer him at the time because the unit was undergoing an audit. Finally, in December 2010, he was released from the Connecticut troop program unit for a potential 365-day deployment. n. The applicant was medically cleared by a doctor in December 2010 and thereafter received orders to report to the Fort Benning CONUS Replacement Center. However, due to his prior non-deployment for medical reasons, he was placed in a holding position pending medical clearance for deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant was at the Fort Benning CONUS Replacement Center for 54 days until he was deemed non-deployable and released from active duty on 2 February 2011. He was again placed in the IRR, but he secured an active duty assignment with the Corps of Engineers in June 2011. Germane to this application, due to his transfer to the IRR and time in the Warrior Transition Unit, the applicant's records contain a significant gap in rated time from 31 August 2009, the through date of his last OER, and 11 June 2011, the date he re-entered active duty after his stint in the Warrior Transition Unit and the date his next OER rating period began. o. Sometime after 11 June 2011, the applicant was selected for a COL position in Afghanistan as a senior advisor to the Afghan National Army. In May 2012, he began experiencing chest pains that caused him to be medically evacuated to Germany. 4. The memorandum from the Commander, Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery Regiment, dated 3 March 2003, subject: Letter of Concern, states the applicant received this letter because his commander was dissatisfied with the poor attitude he displayed on several occasions since he took command in May 2002. The battalion commander noted the applicant continued to demonstrate an uncooperative, less than enthusiastic, and less than supportive approach toward his guidance and directives on more than one occasion. 5. His OMPF contains his referred OER covering the period 2 May 2002 through 31 March 2003. a. Part IId (This is a Referred Report; Do You Wish to Make Comments?) shows he made an election to submit a statement. b. Part IIa (Signature of Rater) shows the rater signed the report on 9 October 2003. c. Part IIc (Signature of Senior Rater) shows the senior rater signed the report on 10 October 2003. d. Part IIe (Signature of Rated Officer) shows the applicant signed the report on 10 November 2003. e. Part IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) shows his rater marked "No" for Emotional. f. Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance Potential during the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion) shows his rater marked "Satisfactory Performance, Promote." g. Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance and Potential for Promotion) shows the rater commented: [Applicant] is a technically and tactically proficient field artillery officer who strives consistently to accomplish the mission at hand. This rating period he has performed the duties of the BN [battalion] S3 [operations officer] well and has also performed the duties of the BN XO [executive officer] in the absence of the XO. Among the duties that [Applicant] has performed successfully is the preparation of the BN YTP [yearly training plan] IAW [in accordance with] guidance provided by higher Hqs [headquarters] and I, the management of the BN's fiscal accounts, the coordination with outside agencies for training areas and equipment, and the management of the BN Class V account. [Applicant] has also successfully supported a 42d Division SRP [Soldier Readiness Processing] weekend early this year which allowed the 1-258 FA [1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery Regiment], to process 100% of Soldiers that were PDY [present for duty] for that event. Further, [Applicant] has contributed greatly to this battalion's success in performing various State Active Duty missions this TY [training year]. In so far as his assigned duties are concerned, [Applicant] has done well this rating period. However, in conjunction with good duty performance, [Applicant] has demonstrated an inability to display self-control [sic] and calm when he is presented with direction, guidance, or orders that he does not agree with. His personal demeanor has sometimes verged on insubordination. This is especially disturbing since these displays of poor professional discipline were manifested by [Applicant] in front of junior officers and enlisted Soldiers on different occasions. This poor display of professional attitude has forced me to verbally counsel [Applicant] on more than one occasion and to issue him a letter of concern. I believe this officer still has the potential to continue to contribute positively to the Army. However, [Applicant] must learn to understand a key responsibility as a subordinate: to support his commander and his decisions. He must also demonstrate the personal discipline in all aspects of his conduct that is expected of an officer in the United States Army. h. Part Vc (Identify Any Unique Professional Skills or Areas of Expertise of Value to the Army That This Officer Possesses for Army Competitive Category Captain Through LTC, Also Indicate a Potential Career Field for Future Service) shows the rater commented: "[Applicant] has completed the Senior Officers Artillery Refresher Course. He is reassigned to the State's IG's [Inspector General's] office at the end of this rating period. [Applicant] should remain in the FA [Field Artillery]." i. Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade) shows his senior rater marked "Fully Qualified." j. Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) shows his senior rater marked "Center of Mass." k. Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential) shows his senior rater commented: "[Applicant] is a competent officer who usually completes assigned missions and tasks. He is talented as a training manager for the battalion and technically proficient as a Field Artillery officer." l. Part VIId (List 3 Future Assignments for Which This Officer is Best Suited. For Army competitive category captain through LTC, also indicate a potential career field for future service) shows his senior rater listed the following positions: "BN S3, BN XO, BDE [Brigade] FSO [Fire Support Officer]." 6. The memorandum from the Commander, Headquarters, 3rd Brigade, 42nd Infantry Division (Mechanized), dated 20 October 2003, subject: OER Referral (2 May 2002- 31 March 2003) (Applicant), referred his OER to him for acknowledgement. 7. The applicant's memorandum, dated 5 November 2003, acknowledged receipt of his referred OER and stated: a. The referred OER was extremely untimely, in violation of Army Regulation 623-105, and not in compliance with his transfer orders. The transfer to the detailed inspector general position became effective 1 April 2003. The untimely completion of his referred OER and negative comments appear to have been done with malice to prevent his promotion and reduce his chances for continuation by the 2004 Selective Retention Board. The following comments are examples of his performance during the rated period that contradict the adverse comments written on his OER: (1) Part IVb1 (Attributes), this block was checked "No" for Emotional. This block refers to being calm and under control. During annual training in 2002, the battalion had one firing battery conducting live fire at Fort Drum, NY. During night fire exercise, the battery was adjusting an illumination round to prepare for a coordinated illumination. The first round fired was high-angle and short, bursting over the observation post. The canister ejected and the Soldiers on the observation post heard the canister impact near our forward observer's location. As the round burst, the applicant instructed the Soldiers on the observation post to get under cover in the fire support team vehicle and the tactical operations center to close up in the command post vehicles. He stayed outside in the open to ensure and verify the round burnt out safely and did not harm personnel or damage equipment. Also, during annual training, the acting first sergeant arrived at our location with a Soldier complaining of severe chest pains. Prior to his arrival, the first sergeant called range control for a medical evacuation. Some of the officers and noncommissioned officers panicked. He calmed the situation down and began to coordinate the landing of the medical evacuation. During State active duty at Fort Hamilton, NY, while under severe emotional strain, he conducted his duty in a calm and professional manner to the point of receiving a letter of appreciation from the task force commander. (2) In Part V, the battalion commander referenced he displayed borderline insubordination. At no time did he fail to submit to authority or not complete the orders given to him in a timely manner. He always supported the commander in public and in private, and never argued to embarrass his command. b. The facts as outlined and the fact that LTC O____ made overtures on two occasions during the rating period that indicated his full trust and confidence in his abilities and duty performance made it difficult to rationalize this performance appraisal. First, in August 2002, the commander selected him to be his executive officer with the concurrence of the brigade commander. In February 2003, the commander personally asked him to reconsider taking the position with the inspector general's office. Initially, he honored LTC O____'s request but later changed his decision based on advice and guidance from several mentors. His decision was based solely on professional development needs and his desire to serve Soldiers. c. He received a letter of concern, dated 3 March 2003, which focused on a 3-4 week time period in February 2003. During that period, he was dealing with several traumatic family issues. In December, his mother passed away and he was responsible for settling her estate. In January through February of the next year, his father was hospitalized and under doctor's care with a heart condition and his sister was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. While dealing with these personal issues, he was command-directed to Fort Hamilton to support the State active duty mission and assist the task force commander with issues he had with members of the 258th Field Artillery Regiment's chain of command (he was not placed on State active duty because of funding). He was not relieved of any of his full-time responsibilities, thus causing him to travel extensively. Dealing with his family issues, performing his full-time duties, and supporting the State active duty mission ended up working him to exhaustion. He tried to mitigate the overall situation by requesting some assistance with his full-time duties, but the commander rebuffed his request for assistance. He also sought bereavement counseling in an attempt to deal with the overall situation at work and home. With these issues at hand, it seems he was not treated with the fairness and objectivity as referenced in Army Regulation 623-105 by his rater in relation to his situation. d. On 2 March 2003, he called LTC O____ to explain that he decided to accept the position of detailed inspector general. It was at this time that he was told by LTC O____ to report to his office on Monday morning, 3 March 2003. When he reported, he was handed the letter of concern. After reading the letter, he contacted the inspector general to verify the position was still available. He then asked LTC O____ to contact COL C____ if he had any reservations about him taking the position. LTC O____ stated there were no issues. The position as detailed inspector general required a very thorough background investigation, culminating with the final approval by the Inspector General of the Army. If he was to receive a referred OER, to prevent embarrassment to the Adjutant General and to the New York ARNG, the battalion commander should have informed the Inspector General, COL C____, of this fact. He believes he received negative comments on his referred OER as reprisal for leaving the 258th Field Artillery Regiment. 8. The applicant's memorandum, undated, subject: Detailed Statements, stated the provisions of Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3-7d, state: a. The rated officer will have a face-to-face interview with rater within the first 30 days. This interview never happened. Furthermore, he did not receive any verbal or written counseling until he stated he was moving to a new position as a detailed inspector general. The DA Form 67-9-1 is completed and the initial face-to-face interview is done as stated in Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3-9. b. The second concern is that the senior rater did not complete the DA Form 67-9-1 per Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3-9. c. The third concern is that the senior rater did not complete Part VII correctly, causing a second OER to be drafted. Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3-22, outlines the responsibility of the senior rater for completing this section of the OER. A second OER was completed after the National Guard Bureau returned the first OER. He does not know why the second OER was not submitted. The comments contained in the narrative section are inconsistent with the feedback he received from his rater and senior rater. The only negative counseling he received was the letter of concern. His rater never indicated any issues with his performance or his duty. Prior to the letter of concern he was asked by his rater not to take the position with the Inspector General. Furthermore, he was given the additional duty of executive officer. The first referred OER was submitted 6 months after the through date and the second was 9 months after the through date. d. Per Army Regulation 623-105, an inquiry must be forwarded not later than 120 days after the through date of the OER. Each referred OER that he received, he responded to the senior rater as outlined in Army Regulation 623-105. Following the memorandum to the senior rater, he followed up each referred OER with a request for a commander's inquiry. He did not receive a response concerning the commander's inquiry (not available for review) until February 2004 (11 months after the through date). It was not until October 2004 after he was mobilized with the 42nd Infantry Division when he received an answer. The request for a commander's inquiry was denied by the 42nd Communications Squadron. His career has suffered because of the lack of due process, timeliness, improper procedures, and incorrect statements in the OER. 9. The memorandum from COL G____ Jr., dated 29 January 2004, subject: Supporting Statement for OER Appeal of Applicant, states he served as the battalion executive officer for the 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery Regiment, from 1 September 1999 through 1 May 2003. In this position, he observed the applicant in the capacity of battalion operations officer. The applicant performed the duties of the battalion executive officer for a period of time pending his reassignment. While in the position of executive officer, he developed a close working relationship with the applicant and felt he knew his strengths and weaknesses. a. Approximately in late September 2002, LTC O____ informed him that the applicant was now responsible for the duties of executive officer. The duties entrusted to the applicant included the responsibility of writing OERs of officers he was required to rate. He explained to LTC O____ that this was not in accordance with the published rating scheme to have the applicant rate officers he was responsible for until the change of duty OER was completed and a new rating scheme was published. LTC O____ was told to follow his direction. b. Starting 1 October 2002, the applicant became the acting battalion executive officer with the additional duty of battalion operations officer, his full-time AGR position. During this period, he saw the applicant handle his duty positions with competence and professionalism. In December 2003, the applicant suffered the tragic loss of his mother, combined with serious medical issues with his father and sister. Never did he see the applicant show any unprofessional behavior in front of any junior leader or display any type of insubordination. 10. The applicant's memorandum, undated, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal (2 May 2002-31 March 2003) (Applicant), states he was informed that he would not be considered for a command due to the derogatory comments made in his referred OER. a. The basis of the appeal was substantive inaccuracy. The report contains statements concerning a negative attribute in Part IVb(1) and the negative comments concerning his inability to display self-control and borderline insubordination were inaccurate. (1) He felt the following portion of his referred OER was not correct: "…[Applicant] has done well this rating period. However, in conjunction with good duty performance, [Applicant] has demonstrated an inability to display self-control and calm when he is presented with direction, guidance, or orders that he does not agree with. His personal demeanor has sometimes verged on insubordination. This is especially disturbing since these displays of poor professional discipline were manifested by [Applicant] in front of junior officers and enlisted Soldiers on different occasions. This poor display of professional attitude has forced me to verbally counsel [Applicant] on more than one occasion and to issue him a letter of concern. I believe this officer still has the potential to continue to contribute positively to the Army. However, [Applicant] must learn to understand a key responsibility as a subordinate: to support his commander and his decisions. He must also demonstrate the personal discipline in all aspects of his conduct that is expected of an officer in the United States Army." (2) This statement was written as a performance counseling. The statement was not in accordance with Army Regulation 623-105 providing an evaluation for the entire rating period. In all fairness to the rated officer, the entire rating period should be to evaluate performance and potential. He requested removal of this information from this OER. b. The next issue of concern was Part VIIc. The senior rater wrote: "[Applicant] is a competent officer who usually completes assigned missions and tasks. He is talented as a training manager for the battalion and technically proficient as a Field Artillery officer." c. In Part VIId, the senior rater indicated his performance potential for "BN S3, BN XO, BDE FSO." These categories do not represent future potential and are not in line with Part VIIa and Part VIIbทof the senior rater's rating. The referred OER was sent back to New York with a comment to the senior rater to correct Part VIIc to be in accordance with the regulation as to the rated officer's potential. The corrected OER was not submitted for record as required. d. The correct statement as written on the second OER should have read: "[Applicant] is a competent officer who completes assigned missions and tasks. He is talented as a training manager for the battalion and technically proficient as a field artillery officer. [Applicant] has the potential to be a fine primary or special staff officer at brigade or division level." Part VIId should be corrected to read as shown on the second OER to indicate potential as "BDE FSO, DROC [Division Rear Operations Center] OPS [Operations] Officer, Division Targeting Officer." 11. Office of the Adjutant General, State of New York, Orders 082-1021, dated 22 March 2004, promoted him to the rank/grade of LTC/O-5 effective 20 August 2004. 12. On 6 March 2008, the Officer Special Review Board denied his request for removal of the referred OER covering the period 2 May 2002 through 31 March 2003 from his OMPF. The board determined the evidence presented did not establish clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the OER under consideration or that action was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. By a unanimous vote, the Officer Special Review Board determined the overall merits of his case did not warrant the requested relief. 13. His DD Forms 67-9 covering the periods 2003 through 2008 show: a. For the period 1 April 2003 through 31 March 2004, he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. b. For the period 1 April 2004 through 14 October 2004, he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. c. For the period 15 October 2004 through 14 October 2005, he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. d. For the period 15 October 2005 through 30 September 2006, he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Fully Qualified" from his senior rater. e. For the period 1 September 2007 through 31 August 2008, he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. 14. U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Orders A-10-928739, dated 21 October 2009, ordered him to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with duty at Baghdad, Iraq, effective 8 November 2009 for a period of 365 days (enclosure 1). 15. His National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he was honorably discharged from the New York ARNG effective 7 November 2009 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR). He completed 22 years, 4 months, and 13 days of net active service during this period. 16. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was honorably released from active duty on 7 November 2009 and transferred to the New York ARNG Element Joint Force Headquarters National Guard. He completed 3 years, 10 months, and 20 days of net active service during this period. 17. HRC Orders A-12-933473, dated 10 December 2009, retained him on active duty for a period of 60 days effective 9 December 2009 (ending 6 February 2010) to participate in the Reserve Component Warriors in Transition Medical Retention Processing Program for the purpose of a medical evaluation. 18. HRC Orders A-12-933473A01, dated 14 January 2010, amended Orders A-12-933473, dated 10 December 2009, to show his period of active duty was changed from 60 days (ending 6 February 2010) to 56 days (ending 2 February 2010). 19. Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Orders 022-2214, dated 22 January 2010, released him from active duty effective 2 February 2010 and assigned him to the New York ARNG Element Joint Force Headquarters (enclosure 2). 20. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was honorably released from active duty on 2 February 2010. He completed 2 months and 25 days of net active service during this period. 21. HRC Orders C-04-005048, dated 1 April 2010, released him from assignment to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) and reassigned him to the 11th Battalion Detachment, 80th Regiment (Officer Education System), Hartford, CT, effective 31 March 2010 (enclosure 3). 22. HRC Orders A-07-020155, dated 12 July 2010, ordered him to active duty effective 15 July 2010 for a period of 68 days for operational support with duty in Yongsan, Korea. 23. Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Orders 274-2219, dated 1 October 2010, released him from active duty effective 2 February 2010 and assigned him to HRC. The additional instructions state: "Declared Non-Deployable Due to Medical." 24. Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Orders 333-2202, dated 29 November 2010, amended Orders 274-2219, dated 1 October 2010, to show his effective date was changed from 2 February 2010 to 2 October 2010. 25. Headquarters, 99th Regional Support Command, Orders 10-321-00014, dated 17 November 2010, released him from assignment to the 11th Battalion Detachment, 80th Regiment (Officer Education System), Hartford, CT, and voluntarily reassigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) effective 16 December 2010 (enclosure 4). 26. HRC Orders C-12-018597, dated 28 December 2010, released him from assignment to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) and assigned him to the Standby Reserve (Inactive List) effective 28 December 2010 for not making a military service obligation election. 27. HRC Orders C-12-018597R, dated 12 January 2011, revoked Orders C-12-018597, dated 28 December 2010. 28. HRC orders A-12-033571A01, dated 1 February 2011, amended Orders A-12-033571 (not unavailable), dated 7 December 2010, to show the length of his tour changed from 365 days (ending 10 December 2011) to 54 days (ending 2 February 2011) (enclosure 5). 29. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was honorably released from active duty on 2 February 2011 and transferred to the 11th Battalion Detachment, 80th Regiment (Officer Education System), Hartford, CT. He completed 1 month and 2 days of net active service during this period. 30. HRC Orders A-03-104864, dated 8 March 2011, ordered him to active duty for contingency operations – active duty operational support effective 16 April 2011 for a period of 365 days in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with duty in Afghanistan. 31. HRC Orders A-04-107918, dated 15 April 2011, ordered him to active duty for contingency operations – active duty operational support effective 6 June 2011 for a period of 365 days (ending 4 June 2012) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with duty in Washington, DC (enclosure 6). 32. HRC Orders A-04-107918A01, dated 30 November 2011, amended Orders A-04-107918, dated 15 April 2011, to show the length of his tour changed from 365 days (ending 4 June 2012) to 187 days (ending 9 December 2011). 33. His DD Form 67-9 covering the period 6 June 2011 through 9 December 2011 shows he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. 34. HRC Orders A-12-127577, dated 12 December 2011, ordered him to active duty for contingency operations – active duty operational support for a period of 400 days (ending 12 January 2013) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with duty in Afghanistan effective 10 December 2011. 35. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center Orders A-05-208073, dated 3 May 2012, redeployed him and attached him to the Warrior Transition Brigade, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, effective 3 May 2012 for 21 days (ending 23 May 2012) for the purpose of medical evacuation of Reserve Component Soldiers for continued medical care. 36. His DD Form 67-9 covering the period 10 December 2011 through 4 May 2012 shows he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. 37. HRC Orders A-06-211426, dated 27 June 2012, retained him on active duty for a period of 60 days (ending 25 August 2012) effective 27 June 2012 to participate in the Reserve Component Warriors in Transition Medical Retention Processing Program for completion of medical care and treatment. 38. HRC Orders A-06-211426A01 (not available) amended Orders A-06-211426, dated 27 June 2012, to show his period of active duty changed from 60 days (ending 25 August 2012) to 90 days (ending 24 September 2012). 39. HRC Orders A-06-211426A02, dated 26 September 2012, amended Orders A-06-211426, dated 27 June 2012, to show his period of active duty changed from 90 days (ending 24 September 2012) to 104 days (ending 8 October 2012). 40. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was released from active duty on 10 January 2013 and transferred to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 13th Sustainment Command (Deployable), Fort Hood, TX. He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 1 day of net active service during this period. 41. HRC Orders A-02-302442, dated 13 February 2013, ordered him to active duty for contingency operations – active duty operational support for a period of 365 days (ending 17 March 2014) effective 18 March 2013 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with duty in Winchester, VA. 42. HRC Orders A-02-302442A01, dated 12 February 2014 amended Orders A-02-302442, dated 13 February 2013, to show the length of his tour changed from 365 days (ending 17 March 2014) to 561 days (ending 29 September 2014). 43. HRC Orders A-02-302442A02, dated 13 February 2014, amended Orders A-02-302442A01, dated 12 February 2014, to show the length of his tour changed from 196 days (ending 29 September 2014) to 197 days (ending 30 September 2014). 44. His DD Form 67-9 covering the period 5 May 2012 through 17 March 2014 shows he received all positive leader attributes, skills, and actions, and he received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" from his rater and "Best Qualified" from his senior rater. 45. On 22 May 2014, the ABCMR denied his request for removal of the referred OER covering the period 2 May 2002 through 31 March 2003 from his OMPF. There was no evidence to prove the ratings and comments were not the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials when the OER was prepared. The Board determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. 46. HRC Orders C-08-410735 dated 4 August 2014, reassigned him from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the Retired Reserve effective 1 October 2014. 47. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was honorably released from active duty on 30 September 2014 and transferred the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of net active service during this period. 48. HRC Orders C10-498657, dated 27 October 2014, retired him and placed him on the Army of the United States Retired List in the rank/grade of LTC/O-5 effective 2 October 2014. 49. His DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 7 May 2015, corrected his DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 September 2014 to add award of the Legion of Merit. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief is not warranted. The Board further found that the available evidence is sufficient to fully and fairly consider this case without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board reviewed the referred OER covering the period 2 May 2002 through 31 March 2003 and all available allied documents. Although the completion of the report was delayed, the Board found insufficient evidence establishing clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to this OER or that action was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. The Board determined the OER should remain in the applicant's record. 3. Regarding the period of nonrated time between August 2009 and June 2011, the Board found insufficient evidence to conclude that there is an error in the applicant's record. The Board noted that the applicant voluntarily resigned from the New York ARNG in late 2009, and subsequently went through a "transition" period during which many of his plans for continued service did not work out until he was returned to active duty in June of 2011. Regarding this issue, the Board determined the record as constituted is not in error or unjust. 4. The Board noted that to refer an officer's record to a special selection board requires evidence of a material error that may have caused the officer to not be selected by the original promotion board. In this case, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence of material errors in the applicant's record to support a conclusion that he should be reconsidered for promotion to COL/O-6. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XXX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190013351 24 1