IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 November 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007769 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, reversal of the National Guard Bureau’s denial of his exception to policy to retain the $20,000 Officer Retention Bonus (ORB) in the Iowa Army National Guard (IAARNG). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), 8 February 2013 and 5 December 2021 * Statement from Iowa Army National Guard (IAARNG) G-1 * Applicant’s Memorandum for Record * Manual Written Agreement – Officer Retention Bonus, 15 December 2020 * April 2020 Permanent Change of Station orders * Exception to Policy, 28 June 2021 * Memorandum, 25 January 2021, Subject: Out of Cycle Officer Career Management Board Moves FACTS: 1. The applicant states to correct the injustice, he asks the Board to review the attached packet, and find that either A) he was a fully qualified 31A (Military Police) in a critical MOS (military occupational specialty) carrying out duties and the ETP (exception to policy) was reasonable, justified, and appropriate and award him the bonus; or in the alternative B) Find that he reasonably relied on the guidance of individuals who asserted to be knowledgeable regarding the bonus procedures, and following their guidance was to his detriment; that had he waited less than 60 days, he would have received his DA Form 1059 showing that he completed the Support Operations Course, and was a fully qualified 90A (Logistics), and that the Army failed to timely inform him that he would not receive the bonus, so that he could reapply as a 90A (total waiting time was 473 days from filing for bonus on 20201215 to denial 20220402, or 421 days from qualification as a 90A on 20210205 to denial 20220402). a. On 15 December 2020, he contacted his unit retention NCO (noncommissioned officer), Staff Sergeant (SSG) [] regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 retention incentive for officers meeting the applicable requirements, such as time in grade, MOS, years of service, etc. It was determined that he was qualified to receive the bonus as 31A (Military Police) was a critical retention MOS, and the MOS he was going to obtain, 90A (Logistics) were both critical MOS's. He had been verbally informed that he would be leaving his 31A MTOE (modified table of organization and equipment) position with Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 734th Regimental Support Group, Iowa Army National Guard (IAARNG), Camp Dodge, Iowa. The intent of the Brigade Commander was to transfer him to the 185th CSSB of the IARNG, to serve as the Battalion (BN) S-3 Operations Officer, a 90A position. He was also approved to attend the Support Operations course one month later to obtain his qualification as a 90A (School DA Form 1059 is attached). b. He signed the bonus on 15 December 2020 at the guidance of his then Battalion Executive Officer (XO), Major , and the retention NCO, SSG . He was told to also complete an ETP (exception to policy) just to cover all bases, since the federal recognition of the completion of his 90A qualification could take 6 months, and that the bonus would not be available then. The ETP was signed by all appropriate parties, and the entire sequence of documentation is attached. He continued to perform his duties as the BN S3 with a high degree of skill and made sure to touch base with SSG and his BN XO to ensure that they had not lost track of the bonus and were facilitating it as appropriate. This did not happen. c. First, he has no experience with Officer bonuses or the S1 functions associated with applying for or receiving any bonus or incentive, as this was the first one ever offered to him. He sought out counsel from those who would know, such as his BN S1 NCOIC (the BN S1 was a new 2LT (second lieutenant), unqualified in the MOS), his Battalion XO, MAJ , and the retention NCO, SSG . He was assured that any issues with the bonus would be worked out between those 3 individuals, and that they could complete any paperwork or other requirement to facilitate the bonus. Second, the wait of 473 days as detailed above (or 421 days) is simply unacceptable; he frequently communicated with his unit first sergeant (1SG0, Company Commander, Battalion XO, Battalion Retention NCO about the delay on his bonus, and each time he was assured that they were "tracking it" and "working through it with National Guard Bureau" and "pinging State (of Iowa)", and no movement actually occurred until a public forum with his Brigade Commander in which he stood up and asked about this issue. She appeared to be shocked that no one had informed her of the issue and that no action had been taken. This was in approximately February or March of 2022, and he received the denial a month later. Had that denial been sent 30 or 60 days after obtaining his 90A, he could have reapplied for that bonus under the 90A MOS, and he repeatedly asked if he should withdraw the bonus paperwork and relist him as a 90A. Each time, he was told no by the BN XO, BN Retention NCO, and his 1SG, and he relied on their guidance. d. Finally, as a matter of principle, it appears that the Army failed in this retention incentive- the Army is losing company grade officers at an alarming rate, to the point where incentives are being offered; yet when those targeted individuals apply for the bonus, it takes 473 days to hear back on it, which makes it hard to justify to his wife why he should remain in the Iowa Guard if they aren't going to take care of him. 2. Review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He was appointed as a Regular Army commissioned officer and entered active duty on 6 June 2012. He completed the Military Police Officer Basic Course on 8 February 2013. b. He was honorably released from active duty on 25 September 2019 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 7 years, 3 months, and 20 days of active service. c. He was appointed as a captain in the IAARNG on 26 September 2019. He completed the Support Operations Course on 5 February 2021. d. Shortly before completion of this course, on 15 December 2020, he signed a Written Agreement – Officer Retention Bonus. He agreed to serve 3 years in a valid critical Area of Concentration (AOC)/Military Occupational Skill (MOS) vacancy Duty Area of Concentration Qualified (DAOCQ)/Duty Military Occupational Skill Qualified (DMOSQ) that is currently listed within current FY ARNG SRIP (Selected Reserve Incentive Program) Policy in MOS 31A and would receive a $20,000 Officer Retention Bonus. 3. On 30 June 2021, the applicant submitted a request for an exception to policy. He stated: a. He requests an exception to policy to retain his Officer Retention Bonus. He signed an Officer Retention Bonus on 15 December 2020 for $20,000 lump sum in lieu of a 3-year service obligation. At the time of signature, he was a 31A serving in a 90A position as the S3 Operations Officer for HHC, 185th CSSB. He attended the Support Operations Course and now quality as a 90A but has not been federally recognized to show qualified in my current duty position (90A). b. He signed his ORB addendum in good faith that he was contracting into the correct AOC, despite OCMB action. His ORB request/contract should have had his duty position (90A) and not his AOC (31A). He is currently serving as the S3 Operations Officer and performs his duties to a high degree of technical proficiency. He does not believe that the lack of federal recognition should keep him from receiving his officer retention bonus. 4. On 29 June 2021, the IAARNG G-1 supported the applicant’s Request for Exception to Policy (ETP) for an Officer Retention Bonus (ORB) contract, stating: a. The applicant requests an ETP to receive the current ORB incentive. His duty position previously resided within an authorized AOC (31A) per the SRIP approved AOC list for the ORB. He is otherwise eligible for the ORB incentive, and that his career path assignments are determined by the needs of the IAARNG. In fact, officers are managed at the state level by a quarterly Officer Career Management Board. Assignments are purely based on the needs of the organization and the development of the officer. b. If the Soldier would have not been command directed per the Officer Career Management Board (OCMB) to a 90A Duty AOC this ETP Request would not take place. The G-1 recommends approval to this exception to policy request. 5. The applicant’s ETP was ultimately denied by the ARNG Incentives Oversight Branch on 27 March 2022. The denial memorandum is not available for review. 6. On 19 September 2023, the National Guard Bureau provided an advisory opinion in the processing of this case. An advisory official restated the applicant’s request to be deemed as qualified to receive a $20,000 Three Year Officer Retention Bonus (3YR ORB) for the Critical (MOS) / Area of Concentration (AOC) of 31A/Military Police or 90A/Logistics. The official recommended approval. a. The service member (SM) commissioned as an Officer/2LT in the Regular Army with the AOC of 31A on 5 May 2012. The SM is currently serving as a traditional drilling Soldier in the IAARNG with the AOC of 31A as a CPT. On 15 December 2020 he signed an ARNG Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) contract for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20). This contract was a 3YR ORB for specific AOCs which included 31A and 90A as qualifying Duty Position AOC. b. The IAARNG contends that the SM was advised he was eligible, although his contract was invalid from the point of signature due to several administrative errors at no fault of the SM (reference enclosures). Both his Unit Representative and State Incentive Manager signed the Officer Incentive Request Form, certifying that the SM met all eligibility requirements stipulated by ARNG SRIP FY 20. Further, the IAARNG provided an Exception to Policy (ETP) memo signed by the State G1 on 29 June 2021, explaining the reason his Duty AOC at the time of contract date, was due to command directed reassignment per the State’s Officer Career Management Board (OCMB). c. The applicant’s ETP was ultimately denied by the ARNG Incentives Oversight Branch on 27 March 2022. The ETP denial cited the SM would have been eligible under SRIP FY21 for the ORB if his Primary AOC on the contract, matched the Duty Position AOC he was assigned to receive this incentive. Unfortunately, the ARNG Incentives Branch did not consider the OCMB or that the SM became 90A AOC qualified which occurred on 5 February 2021, more than 8 months prior to the ETP denial. Also, if the SM received timely and adequate guidance, administrative actions could have been made by the State to process a valid FY21 ORB contract for 90A. d. In conclusion it is recommended that the Board approves the SM’s request to receive the $20,000 ORB. This opinion was coordinated with input from the IAARNG and Army National Guard Incentives Branch. 7. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to provide comments and/or rebuttal. He did not respond. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found relief is warranted. 2. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the advisory official that administrative errors out of the applicant’s control led to his ORB contract being invalid. The Board determined the record should be corrected to show an ETP was approved authorizing him to retain the $20,000 ORB. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION ? BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and Army National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing an exception to policy was approved authorizing him to retain the ORB he contracted for on 15 December 2020. 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. Memorandum dated 7 October 2020, Subject: Implementation of the Fiscal Year 2021 Selected Reserve Incentives Program Policy, is effective 26 October 2020, prescribes standards for administering the USAR SRIP for FY21. Officer/ Warrant Officer Retention Bonus (ORB/WORB): a. General. The Retention Bonus is authorized IAW Title 37 U.S.C., DoDI 1304.31, DoDI 1304.34, AR 601-210 and applicable policies. USARC G-1 will identify and announce the eligible population. b. Term of service. 3 or 6-year commitment beginning on the date that the written agreement is approved. Failure to remain in bonus AOC/MOS throughout the entire bonus period may result in termination and recoupment of unearned bonus portion in accordance with AR 601-210. Failure to complete the 3 or 6-year commitment in a will result in recoupment of the unearned portion. The 3-year Retention Bonus is payable in lump sum up to $20,000. 2. National Guard Regulation 600-7 Personnel – General - Selected Reserve Incentive Programs, governs incentive policies, procedures, and eligibility criteria for persons entering into an incentive agreement at the time of enlistment, affiliation, reenlistment, extension, commission, or appointment into the ARNG, on or after the effective date of this regulation. Under the provisions of Title 37 USC 355 a service member of the SELRES who voluntarily executes a written agreement, reenlists, or extends in a designated skill or unit for at least one year may be paid a Critical Skill Retention Bonus. The purpose of this bonus is to retain Soldiers who are qualified for and serving in either a designated Critical Skill (CS) or who agrees to assignment to a designated High Priority Unit (HPU) to support the ARNG in meeting critical manpower shortages. It has a direct impact on retention of Soldiers serving in the designated CS or HPU. The Soldier must execute a written agreement to serve as a member of the ARNG and remain in the SELRES as an officer/warrant officer or reenlist/extend as an enlisted member per current FY SRIP policy and holds one of the ranks and meets the conditions listed under the current FY SRIP policy. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220007769 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1