IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006612 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * removal of General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), all other derogatory material relating to such GOMOR * removal of the referred Officer Evaluation Report for the rating period 8 January 2020 through 5 August 2020 * reinstatement back on the Army Reserve Active, Guard, and Reserve (AGR) program with all time and pay to reflect accordingly * correction of his major (MAJ) promotion date of rank from 5 August 2020 to 1 July 2020 * removal of unfavorable flagging action within IWS dated 7 January 2021 * removal of Chief of Army Reserve disapproval to remain in the AGR program, dated 19 November 2021 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-authored statement * Statement of Mr. * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) and Army Commendation Medal Certificate * Officer Evaluation Reports, 2021-08-06 through 20220328 and 20200906- 202108-05 * Email Exchange/Text Exchange * New River Battalion Rating Scheme * Letters of Recommendation for Promotion * Delay of Promotion and Referral to Promotion Review Board * Secretary of the Army removal memorandum * DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions) * Officer Evaluation Report Support Form * Self-authored Memorandum for Record, Timeline of Events While Assigned as an Army ROTC Assistant Professor of Military Science (APMS) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University FACTS: 1. The applicant gives a background of his prior U.S. marine service, his Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted service, and his military service as a commissioned officer. He highlights his deployments, awards and decorations, assignment to the AGR program, and details his actions that led to an incident during a social gathering. He received a GOMOR for his unprofessional conduct following attendance of a post-commissioning social gathering for a cadet. He was alleged to have made inappropriate comments that were disrespectful and offended other attendees at the gathering. He provides two of his subsequent Officer Evaluation Reports together with an Army Commendation Medal certificate and multiple statements if support and/or recommendation for promotion from various individuals who spoke about the incident and endorsed the applicant’s promotion. The applicant further argues: * He did not make inappropriate comments about two sisters who were at the social gathering and that there were inconsistencies in the two sisters’ statements and their boyfriends * The two sisters were daughters of Colonel , who disliked him (the applicant), and attempted to derail his promotion and career; it was the COL who created a hostile and unprofessional environment, as well as a toxic environment for him and the entire battalion * The investigation officer believed he (the applicant) was telling the truth; then, the Army promoted him to MAJ despite the incident 2. The applicant previously served in the Minnesota Army national Guard as an enlisted Soldier from 18 November 2008 to 13 July 2009 and a commissioned officer from 14 July 2009 to 16 July 2013. 3. He transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve in July 2013. He was promoted to captain (CPT) in March 2014. In October 2016, he entered active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program. In November 2017, he was assigned as an Assistant Professor of Military Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, in Blacksburg, VA. 4. In May 2020, the Commander, 1st Brigade, U.S. Army Cadet Command, ordered the appointment of an investigating officer (IO), pursuant to an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) to conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding allegations whether on 18 May 2020, * Whether the applicant while in attendance at a post- commissioning social gathering, conducted himself in a manner that, under the circumstances, was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. * While the applicant following his attendance at a post commissioning social gathering at which he consumed alcohol, operated a vehicle while in a state of intoxication. * Whether the applicant while in attendance at a post commissioning social gathering, made inappropriate sexualized comments to or about other attendees. * Whether the applicant while in attendance at a post commissioning social gathering, was drunk and such that his conduct was to the prejudice of goad order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. 5. On 26 May 2020, the Commanding General, 104th Division signed a DA Form 258, Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action, to remove the flag against the applicant, effective 3 May 2020, indicating against the flag was erroneous. 6. On 15 June 2020, the IP submitted his findings and recommendations to the appointing authority. The IO: a. Finding(s): The IO found one of the four allegations substantiated. While in attendance at a post-commissioning social gathering, the applicant made inappropriate sexualized comments to or about other attendees. Based on a preponderance of witness statements, the evidence shows that he made some type of perceived inappropriate sexualized comments at least two times, to at least two of the attendees, 2LT and his significant other Ms. . b. Recommendation(s): The IO recommended no significant punitive action against the applicant. The IO recommended the applicant and cadre conduct training on areas/topics covered In AR 600·20 (Army Command Policy) and Title IX training to include instructor/student counseling without delay to mitigate any future incidents such as occurred in this case. The IO further recommended the applicant receive professionalism and ethics counseling by his rater at a minimum. 7. On 10 July 2020, the applicant was reprimanded for his highly unprofessional conduct. The GOMOR reads: An AR 15-6 investigation revealed that on 16 May 2020, while attending a post-commissioning social gathering for a cadet, he behaved in a questionable manner that demonstrated a lack of judgment. He made inappropriate comments that were lewd and disrespectful, offending other attendees at the gathering. His conduct is all the more egregious because as Cadet Command cadre, he is tasked with training and mentoring cadets in order to shape future officers. His misconduct seriously undermines this mission. As a commissioned officer, he is expected to be an exemplar of the Army Values and the model Soldier. His failure in this regard is inexcusable. The GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. 8. The applicant acknowledged he read and understood the GOMOR he received on 14 July 2020 and elected to submit written matters to the imposing officer. In a rebuttal to the GOMOR 17 July 2020), the applicant took responsibility for his actions and requested that the imposing officer file the GOMOR locally. He contended that while he did not intend to offend anyone, he recognized his constitutionalist views/conduct may have done just that. 9. On 7 August 2020, after considering the reprimand, the circumstances of the misconduct, all matters submitted by the applicant in defense, extenuation or mitigation, and the recommendations of the subordinate commanders, the imposing general officer directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR). 10. Also in August 2020, the applicant also received a Change of Rater Officer Evaluation Report (OER) covering the rating period 8 January 2020 through 5 August 2020 for his duties as Assistant professor of Military Science. His rater was MAJ , the Executive Officer and his Senior Rater was COL , the Brigade Commander. This OER shows: a. This is a “Referred” report and the applicant elected to provide comments. b. in Part IV (Performance – Evaluation - Professionalism, Competencies and Attributes), the Rater commented on the applicant’s Character by saying “Applicant’s behavior failed to adhere to the Army values when he made lewd and disrespectful comments at a post-commissioning social function. c. In Part IV (e) (This Officer's overall Performance is Rated as)< The Rater rated his performance as Capable. d. In Part VI (Senior Rater), the Senior Rater rated his potential compared with others as Qualified” and made the comments: [Applicant] performed his assigned duties well; however, he demonstrated unprincipled character by making lewd and disrespectful comments at a post commissioning social gathering. e. The applicant provided comments to the Referred OER by stating this evaluation suggests that he violated the Army Values by making comments that were “perceived” as lewd and inappropriate; however, this allegation was unsubstantiated. Not only did he not make the comments; it was found that the alleged comments of which he was accused, did not violate AR 600-20, Chapter 7, nor any other Army policy. Additionally, he has not had contact, counsel, nor correspondence with the newly appointed senior rater. At no time throughout this process did anyone in his rating chain counsel him or discuss their intent to give him a referred evaluation. e. The OER was signed by the rater, Senior Rater, and rated officer. It was filed in the applicant’s AMHRR, together with his statement, as required by AR 600-3 (Evaluation Reporting System). f. There is no evidence the applicant requested a Commander’s Inquiry. Likewise, there is no evidence the applicant appealed the contested OER to through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to the Officer Special review Board (OSRB). 11. On 20 April 2021, HRC informed the applicant by Memorandum, Subject: Delay of Promotion and Referral to a Promotion Review Board that the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) Major (MAJ), Army Promotion List (APL), Active Guard Reserve (AGR), Promotion Selection Board (PSB), which convened on 4 March 2020 recommended him for promotion to MAJ. In accordance with AR 135-155, Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), paragraph 3-18, the appointment of an officer may be delayed in any case in which there is cause to believe that the officer is mentally, physically, morally, or professionally unqualified to perform the duties of the grade for which he or she was selected for promotion. a. He received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 10 July 2020 that contains AR 15-6 supporting documents, and a Referred OER for the period 20200108 thru 20200805 which were identified in the post selection screening. b. His records will be referred to a Promotion Review Board (PRB) recommend to the Secretary of the Army, one or more of the following * That he be retained on the promotion list. * That his name be removed from the promotion list. * That he shows cause for retention on active duty. c. A Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) flag has been imposed in accordance with AR 600-8-2, Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag), and will remain in effect throughout the PRB process. This flag can only be removed by this office. 12. On 5 April 2021, the Brigade Commander, 1st Brigade, U.S. Army cadet Command signed a DA Form 268, removing the Flag Code D effective 19 March 2021, and indicating the case was closed unfavorably. 13. On 6 August 2021, the Secretary of the Army ordered the applicant’s retention on the Fiscal Year 2020 Major, Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve, Army Promotion List, Competitive Category Promotion Selection List. 14. On 23 August 2021, HRC published Order B-08-104214 promoting the applicant to MAJ with an effective date and date of rank as 6 August 2021. 15. On 27 August 2021, HRC published Order B-08-104214A1 amending the previous order to promote the applicant promoting the applicant to MAJ with an effective date and date of rank as 6 August 2020 vice 6 August 2021. [Note 6 August 2020 is the approval date of the promotion board]. 16. On 1 April 2022, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (AGR) in accordance with AR 600-8-24 (Officers Transfers and Discharges) for completion of his required active service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) show she completed 4 years, 2 months, and 24 days of active service this period. 17. On 16 August 2022, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) denied the applicant’s request to remove the GOMOR. The DASEB determined there is insufficient evidence which supports the removal of the contested GOMOR. Notwithstanding the applicant’s detailed timeline of events and statements of support, the evidence does not clearly establish the GOMOR is untrue, nor substantiate the misconduct addressed in the GOMOR did not occur. Nor does the GOMOR substantiate the contention that the applicant is the victim of reprisal. 18. The Inspector General Report, dated January 2023, shows the following findings: a. The allegation was that that COL and COL threatened him with removing him name from the Major promotion list and recommended to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Cadet Command to give him the GOMOR in reprisal for filing a complaint against COL and the 1st Brigade executive officer with an IG and reporting hostile work environment to his chain of command. b. The IG determined that the allegations were based on [Applicant’s] misconduct and not in reprisal for his protected communication. Specifically, an AR 15-6 investigation substantiated a SHARP complaint against [Applicant], resulting in a GOMOR, issued to him on 10 July 2020. The IG determined that actions taken by leadership were in accordance with regulatory guidelines and that further, the recommendations and punishment rendered were similar to others receiving substantiated findings in similar administrative investigations. c. The allegations that COL and COL threatened removal of the complainant from the Major Promotion List and recommended a GOMOR, were not substantiated. DODIG dismissed the allegation against Major General based on insufficient evidence to establish inference of causation, as well as the unfavorable OER allegations against COL and MAJ (the rater) because they had been addressed in a previous reprisal case (DIH 20-6119) and dismissed. 19. The DA Form 268 (FLAG) is filed in the applicant’s service record as part of the GOMOR, as an allied document. 20. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain a memorandum from the CAR disapproving him to remain in the AGR program, dated 19 November 2021. There is an internal entry that reads as such, in the Integrated Web Service (IWS) - Soldier Management Services (SMS). The Web Portal (SMS Web) is an HRC internal web- based collection of data, applications, and tools to assist Career Managers and other Human Resource Personnel in supporting Active Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard Soldiers, veterans, retirees, family members, and other stakeholders. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicants petition and available military records, the Board determined the applicant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that procedural error occurred that was prejudicial to the applicant and by a preponderance of evidence that the contents of the referred Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) and the general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) are substantially incorrect and support removal. The Board determined the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) as stated in the IG report for allegations based on the applicant’s misconduct and not in reprisal for his protected communication. The Board found insufficient evidence to show the applicant’s and his counsel’s requested a Commander’s Inquiry. Additionally, there is no evidence the applicant appealed the contested OER to through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to the Officer Special review Board (OSRB). 2. The Board determined the applicant’s record is absent any documentation as states by the applicant and his counsel from the Chief of Army Reserve showing disapproval to remain in the AGR program, dated 19 November 2021. The Board noted the applicant records were corrected by HRC on 27 August 2021 with published Order B-08- 104214A1 amending the previous order to promote the applicant to MAJ with an effective date and date of rank as 6 August 2020 vice 6 August 2021. As such no action from this Board in necessary regarding the applicant’s promotion to Major and his accurate effective date. Furthermore, evidence in the record show on 5 April 2021, the Brigade Commander, 1st Brigade, U.S. Army cadet Command signed a DA Form 268, removing the Flag Code D effective 19 March 2021, and indicating the case was closed unfavorably. The Board noted that removal of a FLAG is generally not warranted unless it is factually incorrect. However, the Board determined based on the evidence in the applicant’ record the incident did occur and the applicant acknowledged with his acceptance of the GOMOR. 3. Based upon the documentary evidence presented by the applicant, his counsel, and found within the military service record, the Board found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a correction of the applicant’s record with removal of the GOMOR and OER. After reviewing the facts and circumstances, the Board found that all due process protections were afforded the applicant and that the processing of his OER and GOMOR was done within regulatory guidelines and standards. For that reason, the Board recommended that denying the requested relief was appropriate. 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. Army Regulation 600-37, Unfavorable Information, sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files. a. Paragraph 1-1 states, in relevant part, that the intent of Army Regulation 600-37 is to ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and, to ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. b. Paragraph 1-4 stipulates that the objectives of Army Regulation 600-37 are 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. Paragraph 7-2a, states that once an official document is properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and 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 AMHRR. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence, are not acceptable and will not be considered. d. Paragraph 7-2b(1) states that unfavorable documents may be appealed based on proof that their intended purpose has been served and their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army. The burden of proof rests with the appellant to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met. e. Appeals approved under this provision will result in transfer of the document from the performance record to the restricted section of the AMHRR. However, transfer of administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure to the restricted section of the official record will not normally serve as the sole basis for promotion reconsideration by a special board, unless approved by the Director, Military Personnel Management (DMPM), as a justified exception to policy. f. Paragraph 7-3c(1) states, an officer who directed the filing in the AMHRR of an administrative memorandum of reprimand, admonition, or censure, may request its revision, alteration, or removal, if evidence or information indicates the basis for the adverse action was untrue or unjust, in whole or in part. g. Paragraph 7-3c(2) states, an officer who directed such a filing must provide the DASEB a copy of the new evidence or information to justify the request. 2. Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Administrative Investigations and Boards of Officers) establishes procedures for conducting preliminary inquiries, administrative investigations, and boards of officers when such procedures are not established by other regulations or directives. Paragraph 5-2 states IOs may use whatever method they deem most efficient and effective for acquiring information. Although witnesses may be called to present formal testimony, information may also be obtained by personal interview, correspondence, telephone inquiry, or other informal means. 3. Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. a. Paragraph 1-11 provides that when it is brought to the attention of a commander that a report rendered by a subordinate or a subordinate command may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation of this regulation, that commander will conduct an inquiry into the matter. The CI will be confined to matters related to the clarity of the evaluation report, the facts contained in the report, the compliance of the evaluation with policy and procedures established by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), and the conduct of the rated Soldier and members of the rating chain. b. Paragraph 3-26 (Referred Evaluation Reports) provides that any report with negative remarks about the rated officer's values or leader attributes/skills/action in rating official's narrative evaluations will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before being forwarded to HQDA. c. Paragraph 3-28 provides that the referral process ensures the rated Soldier knows that his/her OER contains negative or derogatory information and affords him/her the opportunity to sign the evaluation report and submit comments, if desired. (1) The senior rater will refer a copy of the completed OER (an OER that has been signed and dated by the rating officials) to the rated Soldier for acknowledgment and comment. (2) Upon receipt of the rated officer's acknowledgment (e.g., receipt of a signed OER, email, signed certified mail document, signed acknowledgment statement accompanying memorandum, submission of signed comments, and so forth), the senior rater will enclose it, any written comments provided by the rated officer, and the referral memorandum, with the original OER for forwarding to the reviewer (if applicable). (3) If the senior rater decides the comments provide significant new facts about the rated Soldier's performance that could affect the evaluation of the rated Soldier, he or she may refer the comments to the other rating officials, as appropriate. The rating officials, in turn, may reconsider their evaluations of the rated Soldier. The senior rater will not pressure or influence another rating official. Any rating official who elects to raise his or her evaluation as a result of this action may do so. However, the evaluation may not be lowered because of the rated Soldier's comments. If the OER is changed but still requires referral, the OER will again be referred to the rated Soldier for acknowledgment and the opportunity to provide new comments, if desired. Only the latest acknowledgment ("YES" or "NO" on OER signed by the rated Soldier) and the rated Soldier's comments, if submitted, will be forwarded to HQDA. d. Paragraph 4-7 provides that evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. The burden of proof rests with the appellant. e. Paragraphs 4-11a and 4-11b state an evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. The burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration and action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. f. Paragraph 4-11d states for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources (see Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3). Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the appellant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered. g. Paragraph 4-13a(2) states limited support is provided by statements from people who observed the appellant's performance before or after the period in question (unless performing the same duty in the same unit under similar circumstances); letter of commendation or appreciation for specific but unrelated instances of outstanding performance; or citations for awards, inclusive of the same period. 5. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides procedural guidance for completing and submitting evaluation reports and associated support forms to HQDA. a. Paragraph 2-28 provides that: (1) If a referred OER is required, the senior rater will place an "X" in the appropriate box in Part II, block d, of the completed OER. The OER will then be given to the rated officer for signature and placement of an "X" in the appropriate box in Part II, block d. (2) The rated officer may comment if he or she believes the rating and/or remarks are incorrect. The comments must be factual, concise, and limited to matters directly related to the evaluation rendered in the OER; rating officials may not rebut rated officer's referral comments. (3) The rated officer's comments do not constitute an appeal. Appeals are processed separately. Likewise, the rated officer's comments do not constitute a request for a CI. Such a request must be submitted separately. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and states the performance folder is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. Appendix B states the DA Form 67-9 and DA Form 67-10-2 are filed in the performance folder of the Soldier's OMPF. 7. Army Regulation 135-18 (Army National Guard and Reserve - The Active Guard Reserve Program) establishes policies and prescribes procedures for obtaining, administering, and separating Army National Guard of the United States and U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers serving as members of the AGR Program. a. The objective of the AGR Program is to provide selected officers, warrant officers, and enlisted Soldiers to administer; instruct; organize; recruit and train as needed to meet the full-time support and readiness requirements for ARNG and USAR projects, programs, and missions. b. AGR Soldiers will be ordered to active duty (10 USC) or FTNGD (32 USC) for an initial 3-year period. AGR Soldiers on a one-time occasional tour will be discharged at the end of their current order. Soldiers who do not achieve an acceptable level of performance during their initial AGR probationary period may be released in accordance with chapter 5. c. Release from the Active Guard Reserve Program: Separation from the AGR Program, as prescribed by this regulation, is an all-inclusive term which is applied to personnel actions resulting in REFRAD, discharge, retirement, dropped from the rolls, release from military control, death, or transfer/reassignment to the Individual Ready Reserve. All separations, voluntary or involuntary, from the AGR Program will be governed by the following regulations. USAR Soldiers released from active duty, while serving in the AGR Program under the provisions of 10 USC are subject to separation per AR 600–8–24 (officers) or AR 635–200 (enlisted). The Chief, Army Reserve (CAR) will monitor and manage the number of AGR Soldiers in each grade and ensure that the grade structure is consistent with and will support the overall readiness objectives of the USAR. When the CAR determines that there are or may be an excess number of AGR Soldiers for any grade, he may initiate the necessary action to reduce such numbers. Consideration will be given to several factors. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006612 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1