ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190000099 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * reinstatement into the Alaska Army National Guard (AKARNG) * reinstatement into the AKARNG Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program * back pay and allowances since her separation on 31 December 2012 * consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for retroactive promotion to Colonel (COL) * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * letter from her attorney * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * profile status * memorandum regarding Active Service Management Board (ASMB) Announcement * Administrative Retention Review * Medical Readiness Status * emails regarding medical status * self-authored memorandum regarding deployable status * letter regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal * memorandum regarding AKARNG Command Inconsistencies * Report of Assessment of the AKARNG * letter from members of the AKARNG to the Governor * articles from the Anchorage Daily News * memorandum to applicant regarding request to throw out ASMB results * letter from the Inspector General (IG) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: * she was medically approved for continued service and was deployable at the time that an Active Service Management Board (ASMB) selected her for separation * her status in the Medical Protection System (MEDPROS) at the time of the ASMB was "non-deployable"; she had documentation to the contrary; she and her unit were unable to change her MEDPROS prior to the ASMB * it was later demonstrated the MEDPROS code was intentional and wrongful manipulation of her records by senior leadership within the AKARNG * the specific intent was to end the applicant's career and this calculated attack was the result of her complaining of corruption and systemic cover up of crimes and misconduct within the AKARNG senior leadership * her claims were later proven true in 2014, 2016, and 2018; additional evidence of corruption and retaliation became available as recently as October 2018 * her request is based on a collection of evidence detailing corruption, culminating in the report appearing in 2018 3. The applicant, through her attorney, states: a. The applicant requests reinstatement in the AKARNG and AGR program with back pay and allowances since her wrongful separation on 31 December 2012. She would also like to be considered for by a SSB for retroactive promotion to COL. b. The applicant was medically approved for continued service and was deployable at the time the ASMB selected her for separation. The applicant's MEDPROS stated she was non-deployable despite documentation stating she was deployable. She and the unit were unable to change her MEDPROS status prior to the ASMB. c. It was later demonstrated they were unable to change MEDPROS because there was an intentional and wrongful manipulation of the records by senior leadership within the AKARNG with the intent of ending the applicant's career. This attack was a result of the applicant complaining of corruption and systemic cover up of crimes and misconduct with in the AKARNG senior leadership. The applicant's claims were proven true in 2014, 2016, and 2018 as evidenced by the documentation provided for the Board's consideration. d. Even if the ASMB board packet was not intentionally manipulated, the packet improperly reported the applicant's deployment readiness. Relief on this ground is warranted under principles of propriety and equity. e. The applicant served in the AKARNG AGR program for nearly 6 years. She attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) and was separated on 31 December 2012. f. In 2009 the First Sergeant position was vacant in her unit when she was the commander of the unit. The applicant's supervisor and commander wanted to a hire a specific individual for the position because he was a family friend. The person was already filling another position in the unit. g. The applicant's supervisor directed her to hold an AGR hiring board for the position. The individual selected by the hiring board was another unit member. The Soldier selected had volunteered for multiple deployments and had distinguished himself capable of being a first sergeant. h. The friend of the applicant's supervisor was not qualified for the position. He had never deployed and was not on the promotion list to Master Sergeant because he had not taken a physical fitness test in nearly two years due to injuries. His performance in the unit indicated he was not ready for the responsibilities of the first sergeant position. i. The applicant's supervisor protested the hiring of the person selected. She had no ground to invalidate his hiring. The applicant's supervisor and a representative from the G1 office went to the IG's office and told the IG that the Soldier's hiring packet had to be withdrawn since he was not a "Zone 1" candidate. The supervisor told the IG "Zone 1" meant he did not hold a 74D military occupational specialty (MOS). j. The applicant demonstrated to the IG that the "Zone 1" requirement was an arbitrary basis for rejecting the Soldier. The "Zone 1" reference means an AGR already serving in the AKARNG. The IG was an active duty officer serving as the IG and was not familiar with "Zone 1" and other AGR hiring practices. The applicant identified the applicable regulations and forced her supervisor to abide by the recommendation of the hiring board and hired the Soldier chosen for the job. Her supervisor was furious with the applicant for challenging her authority and even more furious the applicant exposed her attempted manipulation of the IG. k. During the applicant's annual physical in April 2010, her hearing slipped from H2 deployable to H3 non-deployable. The standard procedure in the AKARNG was a subjective upgrade by the state surgeon to H2. l. In December 2010, Alaska Senior Command asked the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to conduct an ASMB for LTCs. At the time, the applicant's supervisor determined the applicant had to complete a Medical Review Board for hearing loss. The applicant was not eligible for the ASMB, however, since according to the NGB ASMB Guidance memo, anyone with and Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) due to Senior Staff College (SSC) was ineligible. At the time, the applicant was halfway through the War College and had incurred an ADSO to begin at the completion of the course. m. The applicant completed the Medical Review Board in February and was found to be deployable. Her supervisor's G1 staff changed the applicant's status in MEDPROS to non-deployable. Despite numerous attempts to get the G1 staff to change her status, it was never changed. The applicant was told there was a "glitch" at the NGB level. This was not true. Other states were not having this problem. The applicant's entire chain of command up to the Chief of Staff at The Adjutant General (TAG) level was aware of the issue. n. The ASMB was held in April 2011. The applicant's packet was submitted with a non-deployable status. The applicant attempted to mitigate the technical error with a memo to the board. Despite having a stellar record with three years in command, attending the war college and serving in a COL position, she was forced to retire from the AGR program. o. After the board, the applicant tried to get information on the board. Her requests were mostly denied. The intent was to determine whether her erroneous non-deployable status was a factor in the result. Ultimately, NGB denied release of the information as it is exempt from disclosure. p. On 13 October 2011, while many FOIA requests were pending, the applicant requested the ASMB results be thrown out. Her request was denied by her supervisor. The applicant filed a Department of the Army IG (DAIG) complaint against her supervisor and TAG of AKARNG. The DAIG unfound her claims in reliance on statements from the TAG. q. The applicant met LTC who had been exposing the criminal cover-ups going on in the AKARNG. The cover ups included drug dealing, sexual assaults, and embezzlement. LTC was also boarded by the ASMB and forces to retire along with LTC who had blown the whistle on an officer using a fraudulent college degree. The officer was also an State Trooper and a personal/ professional friend of the TAG who is a retired Anchorage Police Officer. All three officers signed a joint memo to the Governor of identifying the corruption. r. NGB conducted one investigation in 2012 in which the group from NGB conducted a "whitewash" investigation. They spoke only with the senior leadership. The investigation concluded no wrongdoing. s. It wasn't until NGB established the Office of Complex Investigations due to numerous scandals in the guard nationwide that any actual investigations were conducted. In 2014, the National Guard finally did a real investigation and began exposing the corruption, cover up, and criminal activity in the AKARNG. Among the most pertinent findings were: * actual and perceived favoritism, ethical misconduct, and fear of reprisal are eroding trust and confidence in AKARNG leadership * the AKARNG is not properly administering justice through either the investigation or adjudication of AKARNG member misconduct t. There were a series of new articles which detailed the fall-out from the investigation. The AKARNG TAG was forced to resign amid the findings that he worked with local authorities to cover up numerous allegations against members of the AKARNG. The applicant's supervisor was promoted to Brigadier General and was removed from her position in September 2016. The Governor made a statement regarding the TAG and the applicant's supervisor saying he was frustrated and angry it took so long to get to the bottom of the issues. It should not have taken that long, and he offered his apologies. There were a whole range of people who were hurt and deserve it to be made right. u. The latest article regarding the issues was published on 17 October 2018 when an internal Anchorage Police department report became public. The report stated an Anchorage Police Lieutenant who was friends and a former co-worker of the TAG botch an investigation into drug dealing by AKARNG recruiters. The article illustrates the collusion and cover-up which took place between individual(s) in the Anchorage Police Department and AKARNG Senior Leaders. v. The applicant became a target of retaliation by her supervisor when she exposed her supervisor's attempt to circumvent the fair hiring practices required for an AGR position. The applicant's supervisor intentionally torpedoed the applicant's career by manipulating her file to reflect she was non-deployable before the 2011 ASMB. This resulted in the applicant's early separation from the AKARNG AGR program. The stated reason for the error was there was a glitch. No such glitch was ever validated or corrected. The applicant's supervisor and the TAG manipulated the applicant's MEDPROS reporting to intentionally show her as non-deployable for the ASMB board. w. The applicant was indisputably determined to be deployable on 1 February 2011. The applicant's MEDPROS was never updated with the MRB determination. The applicant attempted to correct her MEDPROS prior to the ASMB. Her entire chain of command was aware of the issue. The applicant attempted to mitigate the damage with a letter to the board, but her file read non-deployable. x. The well documented findings of federal and state investigations into the abuse and corruption of the TAG and the applicant's supervisor resulted in their respective resignation and involuntary removal by the Governor. This evidence demonstrates why the applicant's MEDPROS was not properly updated prior to the ASMB and shows her records were manipulated by the TAG and her supervisor with the intent of the applicant's separation from the AKARNG AGR program. y. Relief is warranted under the principles of propriety and equity. The applicant must be reinstated into the AKARNG and AGR program with back pay and allowances and considered for promotion to COL. Even if the ASMB board packet was not intentionally manipulated, the packet still improperly reported the applicant's deployable status. It is evident the ASMB was used fraudulently by senior leadership of the AKARNG to remove officers who objected to and/or fought the corruption within the AKARNG. Relief on this ground is warranted under principles of propriety and equity. 4. The applicant's service records contain the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. Memorandum from AKARNG, Joint Forces Headquarters, dated 15 October 2008 subject Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (Twenty Year Letter). b. Orders 048-105 published by Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, dated 17 February 2010, ordering the applicant to AGR for the period of 16 April 2010 through 31 August 2017, subsequent tour. c. Orders 345-005 published by AKARNG, Joint Forces Headquarters, dated 10 December 2012 honorably separating the applicant from the AKARNG effective 31 December 2012. d. an NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which shows: she was honorably separated effective 31 December 2012. She did not have a terminal date of reserve/military service obligation. She was transferred to the Retired Reserve. An official court document changing the applicant's name effective 11 July 2014 5. The applicant's service records are void of evidence she attended or graduated from the War College, a senior staff college. 6. The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. She had prior ARNG service from January 1983 to May 1984, August 1989 to February 1990, and May 1992 to February 1993. b. She was reappointed in the ARNG on 26 January 1993. She entered active duty on 27 February 1996. She served in a variety of assignments, and she was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) in May 2006. c. On 13 December 2012, the NGB published Special Orders Number 421 AR withdrawing Federal recognition from the applicant, and transferring her to the Retired Reserve effective 31 December 2012. d. She retired from active duty on 31 December 2012 and she was placed on the retired list in her retired grade of LTC on 1 January 2013. Her Form 214 which shows: she completed 16 years, 10 months, and 4 days of active service during this period and 3 years, 2 months and 22 days of prior active service. She did not have a reserve obligation termination date and the last course she attended was Combat Lifesaver Course in 2008. e. A profile status showing her hearing went from a 2 to 3. f. Memorandum from NGB, dated 17 September 2010 regarding the ASMB announcement which states: the calendar year 2011 AGR ASMB will be conducted between 1 January 2011 and 30 June 2011. The memorandum authorizes states to notify Soldier who are determined to be in the zone of consideration. Soldiers who are not within 1 year of completing their ADSO as of 31 December of the calendar year preceding the board date due to military education are not eligible for consideration. g. Memorandum for record from Joint Forces Headquarters - Alaska, dated 1 February 2011 stating the applicant is approved to be retained in her Primary Area of Concentration and Basic Branch. h. A printout of the applicant's medical readiness status showing: she was red in Medical Non-Deployable Profile, a statement that if the information is incorrect to contact her unit MEDPROS data entry clerk to have her status updated; and she is listed green in all other areas including hearing readiness. i. Emails regarding the applicant's medical status, which state: * the applicant asking if the MEDPROS issue was fixed on 14 March 2011 * the applicant stating she's still showing as non-deployable and it's been almost 2 months on 25 March 2011 * a response stating it's a NGB programming issue on 25 March 2011 * the applicant stating she asked a different state if they were having issues changing MEDPROS and being told they were not on 13 April 2011 j. Memorandum from the applicant to the ASMB, dated 24 February 2011 stating she is deployable though her MEDPROS states otherwise and she included the approval memo with her memorandum. k. letter from the Office of the General Counsel to the applicant, dated 5 September 2012 regarding her FOIA appeal dated 3 May 2012. l. Memorandum for record completed by LTC (Retired) dated 4 April 2012, which states: the author was asked to comment on inconsistencies concerning personnel management within the senior leadership of the AKARNG; there were many inconsistencies. The most peculiar involved LTC and his future assignment. The Soldier's records were submitted before an Officer Professional Leadership Board for reassignment. The board consisted of the applicant's supervisor and several other Colonels. Final approval of the board rested with the TAG. The author had no decision authority and was asked by the president of the board to validate a college diploma given to the LTC. The author went to a national website and learned the diploma was from a diploma mill he informed the board of his findings. When the LTC was confronted with the accusation he admitted guilt the LTC's background was that of a retired police officer as is the TAG's background. The matter was complicated further because the LTC was given a temporary fulltime paid assignment working in the G3 office. The author saw no disciplinary actions taken against the LTC. During the duty day the author saw the LTC actively pursuing completion of his incomplete Bachelor's Degree. No explanation was given from the LTC except the TAG had directed him to finish his degree. This Soldier could have jeopardized consideration of other Soldier's career enhancement. It was the recommendation of the author for this issue and other to be further investigated by outside agencies. m. NGB Office of Complex Investigation Report of Assessment of the AKARNG, dated 3 September 2014, which states: * the NGB conducted a statewide assessment into the AKARNG and made findings and recommendations in the areas of sexual assault, equal opportunity, coordination with local law enforcement, AKARNG member misconduct, command climate, and the administration of justice * the AKARNG leadership failed to provide the resources, emphasis, and oversight in the implementation of the equal opportunity program * there were several instances of fraud committed by AKARNG members and leadership at the facilities level * examples of fraud included embezzlement of money from a ARNG Family programs account * misuse of government equipment for personal gain * actual and perceived favoritism, ethical misconduct, and fear of reprisal are eroding trust and confidence in AKARNG leadership * the team noted a high level of misconduct occurring within the Recruiting and Retention Command 2008-2009 * some of this misconduct is subject to administrative action * substantiated complaints were made against one officer * this resulted in no administrative action * the officer retired at his rank and was awarded the Legion of Merit * throughout the assessment the team received information regarding allegations of past misconduct * the team sough any and all information related to the allegations and conducted personal interviews * these matters were brought to the attention of AKARNG leadership for action * the misconduct was similar to misconduct identified in prior allegations * senior leader allegations of misconduct were referred to the applicable service IG n. Letter from the applicant and other AKARNG members to the Governor, dated 25 October 2011, which states: * they were requesting his assistance in obtaining information for the ASMB * they had made requests through the AKARNG leadership requesting the results be thrown out because the board violated NGB Policy * their chain of command refused to provide them the information or divulge any information relating to the secret board * the board targeted individual Soldier who were Armor Officers * their selection for release by the board appeared to be the culmination of a pattern of abuse of authority by the TAG and the applicant's supervisor * all three officers selected for release were Armor Officers who had questioned the leadership and/or integrity of the applicant's supervisor and TAG o. A newspaper article from the Anchorage Daily News dated 17 October entitled "Secret report says Anchorage police blotched investigation into drug dealing by AKARNG recruiters." p. Newspaper article from the Anchorage Daily News dated 20 October 2014 entitled "3 National Guard officers fired, 2 for second time" q. Newspaper article from the Anchorage Daily News dated 15 June 2015 entitled "Report calls for apology, accountability for toxic culture at Alaska National Guard" r. Newspaper article from the Anchorage Daily News dated 4 September 2014 entitled "General resigns as Parnell assails 'culture of mistrust' in Alaska National Guard" s. Memorandum to the applicant, dated 24 October 2011, regarding the applicant’s request to throw out the results of the ASMB stating NGB approved the board proceedings and his request was denied. r. Letter to the applicant from Office of the Inspector General, dated 24 September stating the allegation the TAG manipulated the ASMB was not founded 7. National Guard Regulation 600-5 (The Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program Title 32, Full Time National Guard Duty (FTNGD) Management) states, 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). Commanders and supervisors may initiate involuntary release from active duty for any reason permitted by Army or ARNG regulations for separation 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. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support officer promotions. Chapter 7 provides for SSBs. a. Paragraph 7-2 states the SSBs may be convened under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628 to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when HQDA discovers one or more of the following: (1) An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error. This would include officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the temporary disability retired list and who have since been placed on the active duty list (SSB required). (2) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary). (3) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary). b. Paragraph 7-3 (Cases not considered) states an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when the following occurs. (1) The officer is pending removal from a promotion or recommended list, and the removal action was not finalized by the Secretary of the Army 30 days before the next selection board convened to consider officers of his or her grade. The officer will be considered by the next regularly scheduled selection board. (2) An administrative error was immaterial, or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the Officer Record Brier (ORB) or OMPF. It is the officer’s responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them. c. Paragraph 7-11, officers who discover that material error existed in their file at the time they were non-selected for promotion may request reconsideration. 7. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. a. The evidence of record shows the applicant was considered by the 2011 ARNG AGR Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) Board/Active Service Management Board (ASMB) but not selected by that board. She was transferred to the Retired Reserve on 31 December 2012. She petitioned the NGB to throw out the results of the board based on her perception that the board was in violation of NGB policy (Selection objectives that would narrow the board population to the point it targets individual Soldiers will not be developed.). The NGB had approved the board proceedings after they determined the board was run in accordance with all regulations, policies, and procedures and the board decision is not appealable once NGB approves the board. As such, the NGB disapproved her request. Additionally, the Inspector General determine the allegation that The Adjutant General manipulated the ASMB was not founded b. Appointment in the State ARNG is a function of the State. The applicant may reapply for appointment in the AKARNG if she wishes to continue service in that component. c. By law and regulation, an SSB is appropriate if an officer was not considered in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error, or the promotion board that considered the officer in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error; or if the promotion board that considered the officer in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information. The Board determined since there is no material error in his record, an SSB is not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. 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. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support officer promotions. Chapter 7 provides for SSBs. a. Paragraph 7-2 states the SSBs may be convened under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628 to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when HQDA discovers one or more of the following: (1) An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error. This would include officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the temporary disability retired list and who have since been placed on the active duty list (SSB required). (2) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary). (3) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary). b. Paragraph 7-3 (Cases not considered) states an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when the following occurs. (1) The officer is pending removal from a promotion or recommended list, and the removal action was not finalized by the Secretary of the Army 30 days before the next selection board convened to consider officers of his or her grade. The officer will be considered by the next regularly scheduled selection board. (2) An administrative error was immaterial, or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the Officer Record Brier (ORB) or OMPF. It is the officer’s responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them. c. Paragraph 7-11, officers who discover that material error existed in their file at the time they were non-selected for promotion may request reconsideration. 4. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190000099 1 1