IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 April 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000436 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous requests for: * constructive active duty Army Guard Reserve (AGR) service credit and correction of his Chronological Statement of Retirement Points to show 365 total retirement points form the Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 17 March 1999 to 17 March 2006: * for RYE 17 March 1998, 15 membership points and 365 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 1999, 15 membership points and 366 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 2000, 15 membership points and 365 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 2001, 15 membership points and 365 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 2002, 15 membership points and 366 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 2003, 15 membership points and 365 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 2004, 15 membership points and 133 active duty points * for RYE 17 March 2005, 15 membership points and 086 active duty points * direct a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 with a date of rank (DOR) commensurate with eligibility based on his DOR at sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 of 29 March 1997 * retroactive pay for his promotion to MSG/E-8 * promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 with a DOR commensurate with his promotion to MSG/E-9 * waive all Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES requirements * amend his records to show he completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) within 180 days of being promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG)/E-6 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Counsel 11 page statement, 23 February 2023 * Applicant declaration, 23 February 2023 * ARBA letter to Congress, 24 January 2023 * By reference, evidentiary documents previously provided to the Board in his application on Docket AR20180006969 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Numbers AR20060017164 on 19 September 2007, AR20090007193 on 5 April 2010, AR20140016684 on 21 May 2015, and AR20180006969 on 1 July 2019. 2. The applicant has provided new arguments through counsel witch warrant Board consideration at this time. 3. The applicant states through counsel: a. The applicant was unlawfully separated from an active duty Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position with the Army National Guard (ARNG) in 1997. He was deprived of years of service and career advancement opportunities. b. The ABCMR has found the applicant to be the victim of an error warranting relief for constructive service but it has yet to grant the full relief that would return him to the position he would have been in but for his unlawful separation from the ARNG. c. This case has an extensive decades-long procedural history culminating with the last case decision in AR2018006969 on 1 July 2019. d. He was separated from the ARNG on 18 March 1998 for allegedly failing a urinalysis test. e. In 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded his service to honorable. He then reenlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and returned to the AGR on orders until his retirement in 2011. f. In 2007 the Adjutant General (TAG) of the ARNG determined he did not receive due process in his separation proceedings and corrected for removal of all references to alleged misconduct. g. In 2010, the ABCMR directed removal of all references to the alleged misconduct resulting in his 1997 discharge; correcting his records to show he remained on active duty orders in the AGR from 30 September 1996 to 29 September 1999; and awarding him 35 additional active duty points per year for the years 2002 through 2005 towards non-regular retirement; and correcting his records to show he earned the rank SSG/E-6 while serving in the USAR until his promotion to SFC/E-7 on 1 June 2009. This decision did not grant active-duty credit for the time he lost. h. On 7 March 2011, the ARNG changed his records to reflect promotion to SFC/E- 7 with a date of rank (DOR) of 29 March 1997. i. In 2015, he requested the ABCMR grant constructive credit with pay for active duty service from 6 November 1997 to 20 July 2007, service he would have completed had it not been for his discharge from the ARNG. He also requested promotion to MSG/E-9. The Board denied these requests on or about 21 May 2015. j. In 2017, he again petitioned the ABCMR requesting service credit and a DOR correction to MSG/E-8 with an accordant Standby Advisory Board (STAB) promotion consideration. The ABCMR granted his request for the STAB consideration but denied his request for constructive service credit. The Board make a key determination that it was reasonable to presume had he not been erroneously discharged, he would have stayed in service and competed for promotion to MSG/E-8 as early as 2000. k. In 2019, he applied to the ABCMR requesting his records be corrected to show he served in the ARNG in an AGR status from 18 March 1998 to 28 July 2005, earning 365 points each year with amendment of retirement points statement to show this. Thus, active duty constructive service credit was warranted under the ABCMR's duty to provide full and fitting relief. l. The Board must consider the applicant's regulatory argument that constructive service warrants active duty AGR credit. The circumstances of this case warrant active duty AGR constructive service credit for the time he lost due to his ARNG separation. m. "Make whole" relief must include the applicant's retroactive promotion to MSG/E- 8 and his promotion to Sergeant Major SGM/E-9. His unlawful discharge from the MAARNG precluded his ability to compete for career advancement. 4. The applicant provided through counsel: a. An eleven page statement, his declaration certifying appointment of counsel, and an ARBA response letter to a congressional inquiry, 24 January 2023. 5. A review of the applicant's service records shows: a. On 18 March 1983, he enlisted in the USAR Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for a period of 6 years beginning at grade/pay grade private first class/E-3. b. On 4 May 1983, he was discharged from the USAR DEP in order to enlist in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years. c. He reenlisted in the: * RA on 30 January 1986, for a period of 4 years at grade/pay grade specialist (SPC)/E-4 * RA on 13 January 1988, for a period of 6 years at grade/pay grade staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 * RA on 28 September 1992 for a period of 6 years at grade/pay grade SSG/E- 6 d. On 28 April 1995, and prior to his discharge, he enlisted in the USAR on for a period of 4 years at grade/pay grade SSG/E-6. e. On 30 April 1995, he was honorably discharged from AD by reason of early transition program-voluntary separation incentive (VSI) after having served 11 years, 11 months, and 27 days, and transferred to control of the USAR Control Group (Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR)). His grade/pay grade was SSG/E-6. f. On 13 March 1996, he enlisted in the Army National Guard. He transferred to Detachment 4 (Det 4), State Area Command (STARC), Recruiting and Retention (REC and RET), ARNG and entered the AGR program as a recruiter on 30 September 1996. g. On 17 October 1997, he provided a urine sample that tested positive for benzoylecgonine (BZE), a cocaine metabolite. Based on the positive urinalysis test results, the ARNG initiated separation actions against him to release him from active duty. h. On 6 November 1997, a board of officers determined that the urinalysis test supported a finding that he wrongfully used cocaine and recommended his release from the ARNG and from the AGR program with a general discharge. i. On 6 November 1997, he was discharged. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs. He was transferred to control of the MAARNG. He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days net active service this period; 12 years and 8 days total prior active service; and 1 year, 6 months, and 8 days total prior inactive service. His grade/pay grade was SSG/E-6. j. He was processed for separation from the ARNG. On 20 November 1997, an administrative separation board convened and recommended his discharge with a general, under honorable characterization of service. k. On 25 November 1997, The Adjutant General, ARNG, approved the findings and recommendations of the Board. On the same date and as a result of the Board recommendations, orders were published discharging him from the ARNG. A NGB Form 22 was issued to him showing the character of his service was general, under honorable conditions; he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 13 days net service this period; his grade/pay grade, SSG/E-6; and his DOR was 4 April 1987. l. On 15 June 2004, and in Docket AR2003097705 (OSA Form 172), the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered his testimony and documents presented at a travel panel hearing in New York, and voted to upgrade the characterization of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable based on an issue of equity. The ADRB voted not to change the narrative reason and the authority for his separation. The ADRB forwarded its decision and recommendation to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Readiness Center for its consideration. m. On 23 July 2004, the Chief, Personnel Section, NGB, took administrative action to correct his records with issuance of: * ARNG State Orders 205-8, 23 July 2004, showing his type of discharge from the ARNG was honorable, effective 25 November 1997 * a DD Form 215, 26 July 2004, correcting his DD Form 214 issued on 6 November 1997, to show his character of service was honorable * a NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22), 26 July 2004, correcting his NGB Form 22 issued on 25 November 1997 to show his service was honorable n. On 9 August 2004, the Commanding Officer, Chief Personnel Division, NGB, notified ARBA by memorandum (ADRB Proceedings (Applicant)), it took necessary administrative actions to correct his records showing his service was honorable and issued amended separation documents, State Order, DD Form 215, and NGB Form 22. o. On 29 July 2005, he enlisted in the USAR for a period of 4 years at the grade/pay grade SGT/E-5. p. On 8 February 2006, Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Fort Bragg, issued orders mobilizing him to AD as a member of his Reserve Component unit in an AGR status and for duty in the military occupational specialty 38B (Civil Affairs Specialist) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. His grade/pay grade was SGT/E-5. q. On 31 August 2006, he was issued a DD Form 215, correcting the authority and reason for his separation to Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 4; the narrative reason to 'completion of required service;' the separation code to LBK; and the reentry eligibility code to 1. r. On 15 September 2006, he was promoted to SSG/E-6. s. On 5 April 2007, TAG ARNG, issued Orders 095-020, revoking TAGO Order 205- 8, 23 July 2004, and honorably discharging him from the ARNG, effective 25 November 1997, and assigning him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). t. On 29 July 2007, he was released from AD and transferred to control of 364th Civil Affairs Brigade, Portland OR, USAR. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 5 months and 22 days net active service this period and his grade/pay grade was SSG/E-6. u. On 30 July 2007, he entered AD in the AGR program. He was assigned to the 353rd Civil Affairs Command, Statin Island, NY, and then to the 411th Civil Affairs Battalion, Danbury CT. v. On 19 September 2007 and in ABCMR Docket AR20060017164, the Board denied his request to revoke his discharge for misconduct; to remove all references to misconduct for a positive drug urinalysis result; denied his request to grant constructive service credit form the date of his discharge through the date of his current enlistment; and denied his request to promote him to SGM/E-9 in the USAR AGR Program with a DOR commensurate with normal progression in the USAR AGR program. w. On 10 October 2007, the AG, ARNG, issued a memorandum to the ABCMR requesting favorable reconsideration for his request to grant his request to correct his records to show the urinalysis collection and test result, 17 October 1996 was invalid. In the interest of justice, the ARNG corrected his records to the fullest extent possible within its purview. The AG, ARNG petitioned the ABCMR to provide total relief in his case. x. On 11 May 2009, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) issued orders B-05-903111, promoting him to the grade/pay grade SFC/E-7, effective 1 June 2009, while he was serving in the USAR Control Group (AGR). Copies of these orders are not contained in the available records. y. On 1 April 2010, and in ABCMR Docket AR20090007193, the Board granted partial relief of his requests for reconsideration of his previous application. The board found the MAARNG determined the urinalysis conducted on 17 October 1996 was invalid and the results of this urinalysis were inadmissible in disciplinary action against any service member. The Board recommended, in the interest of justice, all state Army National Guard records and Department of the Army records be corrected, as to his request for: (1) Recission of his relief from AD due to misconduct on 6 November 1997; to grant this request and retroactively rescind his relief from AD in the AGR Program due to misconduct on 6 November 1997. (2) Rescission of relief of his discharge from the ARNG due to misconduct on 25 November 1997; to grant this request and retroactively rescind his discharge from the MAARNG due to misconduct on 25 November 1997. The recommended issuance of new discharge orders transferring him to the USAR, effective 25 November 1997. (3) Providing him constructive service credit from the date of his discharge through the date of his current enlistment; to grant this request and provide him constructive service credit from the date of his discharge from the ARNG through the date of his current enlistment in the USAR (29 July 2005). The Board noted the evidence showed he consistently earned enough points to qualify for a "good year" whenever afforded the opportunity and it was reasonable to assume he would have continued to do so had it not been for his discharge from the ARNG. Therefore, in the interest of equity, the Board determined he should be awarded an additional 35 inactive duty points for the year for retirement years 1999 through 2005 in order to credit him with the 50 point minimum required to qualify for a "good year" each year. (4) Restoration of his Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) pay retroactive to the date of his discharge; to restoration his entitlement to VSI payments. The board noted the applicant's premature and improper discharge from the ARNG was rescinded and VSI payments should be retroactive to that date (18 March 1996). (5) Promoting him the grade/pay grade SFC/E-8, the rank commensurate with his normal progression in the USAR AGR program; to restore his rank/grade from the date of his discharge from the ARNG (25 November 1997) through the date of his promotion to SFC/E-7 in the USAR (1 June 2009). The Board noted it was also appropriate to pay him all entitlements associated with this correction in rank/grade retroactive to 25 November 1997. (6) Expunging all references to the urinalysis conducted by the ARNG on 17 October 1996, his relief from AD on 6 November 1997, his discharge from the MAARNG on 25 November 1997, and paying him all entitlements resulting from the corrections. The Board recommended correction of any administrative action taken solely because of the urinalysis. (7) Promotion to SGM/E-9; the Board noted it would be purely speculative if and when the applicant may have been selected for promotion the MSG/E-8, much less SGM/E-9, and recommended not to grant this requested relief for promotion to the rank/grade SGM/E-9 in the USAR AGR program. The Board noted it was reasonable to presume he would have been considered for promotion to SFC/E-7 at an earlier date based upon his date of rank to SSG/E-6 of 12 July 1996. The Board further noted it would be appropriate for him to be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7 by a STAB based upon his date of rank and recommended having a STAB consider him for promotion to SFC/E-7 based upon an SSG/E-6 date of rank of 12 July 1996. z. On 22 April 2010, AHRC, St. Louis, issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60. aa. On 1 June 2010, he was issued a NGB Form 22A, correcting his NGB Form 22, ab. On 3 June 2010, he was issued a DD form 215, amending his DD Form 214 issued on 30 September 1996, to show he completed 3 years of active service instead of the original 1 year, 8 months, and 13 days of active service shown on his DD Form 214. Block 12b (Separation Date This Period) was amended to show 29 September 1999; block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) was amended to show 3 years; and block 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) was amended to show 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days. ac. On 13 August 2010, he was issued a new DD form 214, showing he was honorably discharged on 29 September 1999, after having completed 3 years net active service in the AGR program. The authority and reason were corrected to show Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 4, with a narrative reason of 'completion of required active duty', and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 1. It further shows his grade/pay grade as SSG/E-6 and his effective date of pay grade as 12 July 1996. ad. On 28 September 2010, HRC notified him by memorandum his records had been forwarded for an enlisted STAB for promotion to SFC based on the fact that, through not fault of his own, his record was not considered by the Calendar Year 2003 USAR (Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)) and Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentee (DIMA) SSG through SGM board. ae. On 13 October 2010, the STAB selected him for promotion to SFC. af. On 7 December 2010, Army HRC published Orders B-05-903111A01, amending his effective date of promotion and date of rank to SFC/E-7 from 1 June 2009 to 1 November 2003. With entitlement to back pay and allowances. ag. Orders 066-092, issued by TAGO, ARNG on 7 March 2011, revoked TAGO Order 116-004 issued on 26 April 2010, and honorably discharged him from the ARNG, effective 29 September 1999. ah. Orders 066-098 issued by TAGO, ARNG, 7 March 2011, promoted him the SFC/E-7, awarded him PMOS 79T40, and SMOS 18B4V, with an effective date 29 March 1997. ai. A NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22), 7 March 2011, was issued to him from the ARNG showing his grade/pay grade was corrected to show SFC/E-7; his DOR was changed to show 25 November 1997; and his MOS was corrected to show 79T40 instead of 79T30. aj. A DD Form 215 was issued to him on 7 March 2011, amending his DD Form 214 (29 September 1999) to show in block 4a (Grade) and block 4b (Pay Grade), his grade/pay grade as SFC/E-7; and in block 12i (Date of Rank), 29 March 1997. ak. On 30 June 2011, he was retired and released to USAR Control Group (Retired) by reason of sufficient service for retirement. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he completed 20 years, 7 months, and 28 days of total AD service. His grade/pay grade was shown as SFC/E-7 with a DOR of 29 March 1997. al. On 21 May 2015, and in ABCMR Docket AR20140016684, the Board granted partial relief to his request for promotion consideration by recommending his record be ensured accurate for all corrections by the ADRB, ABCMR, and MAARNG; his record be submitted to a duly-constituted STAB for promotion consideration to MSG/E-9 under the appropriate year criteria based on his adjusted date of rank to SFC (1 November 2003); and if selected for promotion, correcting his records to show he met all the eligibility criteria for promotion effective the date of release of the applicable promotion selection board, promoting him to MSG/E-8 with the appropriate date of rank, and paying him any associated back pay and allowances as the result of the corrections. The Board denied so much of his request to promote him to SGM/E-9. In its determination and recommendation, the Board noted: (1) The applicant entered the AGR on presumably a 3-year tour that began on 30 September 1996 and terminated prematurely due to his alleged cocaine abuse and subsequent discharge. Had he completed his full AGR tour, he would have been released from active duty on 29 September 1999 by reason of completion of required service. Instead, he was discharged on 6 November 1997 due to misconduct. (2) The ADRB reviewed his discharge and although the ADRB found his discharge proper, this board determined the character of service was harsh and upgraded it to honorable. A subsequent investigation by the ARNG determined there were some improprieties in the discharge process. As a result, his State recommended his discharge action be thrown out. He petitioned this Board for correction of his records and the Board granted him relief for all the issues he raised minus the issue of promotion to SGM/E-9. (3) With respect for service credit, he received full service credit through 29 September 1999, the date he would have completed his AGR tour had he not been discharged for misconduct/abuse of illegal drugs. He also received back pay and allowances for the period through 29 September 1999. (4) Following this adjusted date of release from active duty and transfer to the State ARNG, he would have performed inactive duty and received membership points. The discharge from the ARNG caused him to miss out on receiving service credit for potential ARNG service from September 1999 through May 2005. The Board remedied that and awarded him full credit, at 50 qualifying retirement points per year (i.e., good year) with back pay and allowances, for the period 30 September 1999 (the date after he was released from active duty) to 28 July 2005 (the date before he enlisted in the USAR). This issue has been resolved. (5) With respect to the promotion issue the ABCMR is not a promotion board. Enlisted Soldiers are selected for senior promotions (E-7 through E-9) via a centralized promotion system by a promotion/selection board. If there is an error with the date of promotion for a Soldier who has already been selected by a promotion board, the ABCMR corrects the error. Otherwise, the appropriate remedy for promotion issues is a standby advisory board (STAB). The Board may recommend a STAB if there had been a material error. (6) His original date of promotion to SFC/E-7 was 1 June 2009. However, as a result of various errors in his record, a STAB convened in October 2010 and considered him for promotion of SFC/E-7 under the 2003 criteria. He was selected for promotion. His effective date of promotion and date of rank were adjusted to 1 November 2003. (7) Based on his adjusted date of rank to SFC, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to MSG as early as 2006 (based on 36 months of time in grade as an SFC/E-7). Therefore, he is entitled to have his records considered for promotion to MSG/E-8 by a STAB under the appropriate year criteria. (8) As for promoting him to SGM/E-9, the applicant was never considered or selected for promotion to MSG/E-8 by a promotion board and he never held the rank/grade of MSG/E-8. As such, he could not possibly be promoted from SFC/E-7 to SGM/E-9. Likewise, he is ineligible for consideration for promotion by a STAB because he was never eligible for promotion to SGM/E-9 as per regulatory guidance. am. On 6 August 2015, AHRC notified the applicant his records would appear before a FY15 Regular Army/Army Reserve AGR SGM Training and Selection Board on or about 9 September 2015. This memorandum further notified him the results would be sent to him in approximately 60 days. an. A memorandum issued by AHRC, 12 November 2015 (Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), STAB (Applicant)), notified him that on 18 September 2015, a HQDA STAB convened and recommended his non-selection for promotion to MSG/E-8 under the CY08 Army Reserve AGR MSG section criteria. ao. On 15 September 2017, TAG ARNG, issued Orders 258-001, awarding him Special Duty Assignment Pay level 4 for Recruiter Duty, effective 28 March 1997 and terminating 29 September 1999. ap. On 1 July 2019, and in ABCMR Docket AR20180006969, the Board reconsidered his previous requests to correct his Chronological Statement of Retirement Points, 31 January 2019: (1) His requests through his attorney being: * to show he served in the ARNG from 18 March 1998 to 28 July 2005 and not the USAR * to show he reenlisted in the ARNG in an AGR status on 30 September 1999 * to show he continued to serve on AD in the AGR Program earning 0365 total points creditable toward retirement from 30 September 1999 to 28 July 2005 * direct Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) compute based on basic pay, benefits, allowances, and entitlement on the date prior to his discharge * direct a STAB to MSG/E-8 based on his DOR of 29 March 1997 * waive all Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) requirements * correct his records to show he completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) within 180 days of being promoted to SSG/E-6 (2) After reviewing the applicant's statement through counsel and all the supporting documents provided, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon the evidence showing the applicant was only separated as a result of his own misconduct and all regulatory process rights were properly followed at the time of separation, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warrant any of the requested relief. 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 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 begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the law which governs the operation of the Board, states that “The Secretary may pay, from applicable current appropriations, a claim for the loss of pay, allowances, compensation, emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits, or the repayment of a fine or forfeiture, if, as a result of correcting a record under this section, the amount is found to be due the claimant on account of his or another’s service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard, as the case may be.” 3. Title 10, United States Code (U.S. Code), section 1552 states the Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice. 4. Title 10 US Code Section 1552 (Correction of Military Records: claim incident thereto) states: a. In paragraph (a)(I) it authorizes the ABCMR to correct any military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice. b. In paragraph (a)(4), except when procured by fraud, a correction under this section is final and conclusive on all officers of the United States. c. In paragraph (g) it defines military record as a document or other record that pertains to an individual member or former member of the armed forces, or at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department concerned, any other military matter affecting a member or former member of the armed forces, an employee or former employee of that military department, or a dependent or current or former spouse of any such person. 5. Army Regulation 135-18 (The Active Guard Reserve Program), in effect at the time, provides: a. Those soldiers who are qualified for continuation in the AGR Program require management that provides progressively more responsible duty assignments or attachments and maximum use of military schooling. b. An orderly, well-managed program with opportunities for military education, progressively responsible assignments or attachments, and timely promotion is essential to attract and retain qualified personnel. c. Paragraph 4-6 addresses the recruitment and retention of AGR Soldiers, noting, the ARNG and USAR have a continuing need to retain the best-qualified soldiers in the program. Eligible soldiers should be encouraged to remain in AGR service. d. Paragraph 4-10 of the revised Army Regulation 135-18 further emphasizes the requirement of the Army to recruit and retain qualified Soldiers in the AGR program, providing: * the reserve component has a continuing need to retain qualified Soldiers in the AGR Program * eligible Soldiers should be encouraged to remain in AGR service * the provisions of this paragraph do not apply to AGR Soldiers serving on occasional tours unless the Soldier is continued on active duty immediately subsequent to the tour and, therefore, enters into career status * at the end of the initial probationary period, ARNG AGR Soldiers who are not disqualified for subsequent service and satisfy continuation requirements as determined by NGB will remain on active duty * at the end of the initial probationary period, USAR AGR Soldiers who are not disqualified -3 will remain on active duty, unless on a one-time occasional tour * the subsequent period of active duty will commence immediately on expiration of the probationary period * AGR Soldiers who do not possess the qualifications for continued service within the AGR Program will be released from active duty or discharged 6. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. Chapter 5 prescribes policy for the promotion of USAR Soldiers assigned to Troop Program Units, Army Reserve Elements, and multi-component units. The selection and promotion process for senior enlisted grades SFC/E-7 through SGM/E-9 is centralized at promotion authority headquarters. All SSGs through MSGs/first sergeants (1SGs) who meet the basic eligibility requirements will be considered for promotion. The promotion selection board will select the best qualified Soldiers for placement on the permanent recommended promotion list. Soldiers will be promoted sequentially from the list to fill vacancies in accordance with certain criteria. Promotions off the permanent recommended promotion list will not exceed the cumulative vacancies for that pay grade as computed. All Soldiers within the announced zone and assigned to a unit will be considered by the promotion selection board. Paragraph 1-27 (Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) requirement for promotion and conditional promotion) states the NCOES requirements for promotion. Soldier must be a graduated of ANCOC for consideration for promotion to MSG. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230000436 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1