ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 June 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200009574 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel: * correction of his record to show he was permanently retired in the rank/grade of Major (MAJ)/O-4 * a personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Tully and Rinckey, PLLC, statement for applicant, dated 13 April 2020 * DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report), period covering 12 August 2008 to 11 August 2009 * Orders Number B-09-805642 issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 3 September 2008 * DA Form 67-9, period covering 12 August 2009 to 11 August 2010 * DA Form 67-9, period covering 12 August 2010 to 23 May 2011 * DA Form 67-9, period covering 24 May 2011 to 31 March 2012 * DA Form 67-9, period covering 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 * DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 20 June 2013 * Email correspondence, Subject: Applicant Non-Regular Retirement, dated 6 August 2013 * Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Letter, dated 13 February 2014 * DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report), period covering 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 * DA Form 4187-1-R (Personnel Action Form Addendum), dated 20 June 2014 * Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum for Record, Subject: Applicant Performance Potential Target Year (TY) 14, dated 25 November 2014 * DA Form 67-10-2, period covering 1 April 2015 to 27 August 2016 * DA Form 7652 (Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Commander's Performance and Functional Statement), dated 8 December 2016 * Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Notification of Retirement Action, dated 16 July 2016 * Email correspondence, Subject: Your Request, dated 23 September 2016 * Email correspondence, Subject: Meeting with Colonel (COL) P___, dated 14 October 2016 * Email correspondence, Subject: Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System (HRPAS) action for applicant Self Voluntary Retirement Packet, dated 14 October 2016 * Email correspondence, Subject: Excess Leave for Retirement, dated 14 October 2016 * Email correspondence, Subject: For Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Applicant Updated DA Form 7652 required, dated 6 December 2016 * Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Notification of Retirement Action In lieu of Elimination, dated 3 February 2017 * Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) Record of Proceedings for Docket Number AR2016005299, dated 14 July 2017 * Memorandum for Record, Subject: Nonrated Statement, dated 10 August 2017 * Memorandum, Subject: Retirement in Lieu of Elimination/Officer Grade Determination Case, dated 8 November 2017 * Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Request for Inspector General (IG) investigation of Major General (MG) P___ and Major (MAJ) S___ for Abuse of Authority and Violation of U.S. Army Regulation (AR), dated 8 December 2017 * Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Violation of AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy) and Dignity and Respect Policy by COL H___, dated 17 February 2016 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending on 31 December 2017 * Excerpt of DA Form 2339 (Application for Voluntary Retirement), undated FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 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's counsel states in pertinent part; a. That the applicant served honorably for 27 years before he was improperly retired as a Captain (CPT)/O-3 despite the fact that he served honorably as a MAJ for over 9 years. b. The applicant should be retired when he first submitted a retirement request to his command in 2013. His retirement request was ignored by his chain-of-command, in direct violation of AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges). The command did not have the authority to refuse to process the request. As a result of the command's illegal action, the applicant was forced to submit additional requests in 2014, 2016 and 2017. The failure of the applicant's superior officers to submit his retirement request to the appropriate authorities constitutes numerous breaches of duty by those superior officers. The applicant was eventually found unfit and was processed for a MEB and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The command still moved him to a Grade Determination Review Board (GDRB), which was not a requirement for a medical retirement. The failure of the applicant's command to medically retired him or grant his retirement when requested were both errors and injustices. The failure of the GDRB to retire the applicant at the appropriate rank was further error and injustice. The Army Discharge Review Board does not have the authority to grant the relief requested. c. In 2013, the applicant first attempted to retire after reaching 20 years of service. On 6 August, MAJ F___ forwarded email correspondence to the appropriate individuals within the applicant's chain-of-command informing them of the requirement and stating that the applicant's request could not be processed without an explanation. However, no action was taken to further process the request. In June 2014, the applicant submitted his second request for retirement and despite the request being approved by his Commander, the request went unprocessed by his chain-of-command. In December 2016, the applicant attempted to retire again and this request also went unprocessed despite being approved by his Commander. In February 2017, the applicant requested to retire for a fourth time. This request was finally processed and he was permitted to retire on 31 December 2017. d. AR 600-8-24, chapter 6, paragraph 20, table 6-2 specifically states once a Soldier submits a voluntary retirement application, the Battalion S-1 is required to forward the application through the chain-of-command to the appropriate approval authority. A superior commander located in the service members chain of command does not possess the requisite authority to refuse to forward a retirement request to a superior commander. 3. The applicant's service record shows: a. On 7 June 1996, the applicant was commissioned as a Reserve Officer and executed an oath of office. b. Orders Number R-01-000046 issued by Army Reserve Personnel Command, dated 7 January 1998, showing the applicant was ordered to active duty in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status effective 17 February 1998 with a 3 year active duty commitment. c. Orders Number R-01-000046A03 issued by Army Reserve Personnel Command, dated 18 October 2000, amended Orders Number R-01-000046, dated 7 January 1998 to show the applicant's AGR status was extended indefinitely effective 6 October 2000. d. Orders Number B-09-805642 issued by HRC, dated 3 September 2008, showing the applicant was promoted to the rank of MAJ effective in with a date of rank of 22 August 2008. e. On 25 February 2010, HRC issued the applicant a Memorandum, Subject: Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60, showing the applicant completed the required years of qualifying reserve service and was eligible for retired pay. f. Memorandum, Subject: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, shows the applicant was reprimanded on or about 20 July 2016 for entering into a signed plea agreement in open court admitting to: (1) One violation of Title 18, USC, section 1342, on or between 15 September 2012 through 5 October 2012, by using, assuming, and requesting to be addressed by false or assumed names and addresses other than his own proper name and he received a package and other mail addressed to those false names from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the USPS an unlawful business. (2) Two counts of Tax Fraud and False Statements in violation of Title 26, USC, section 7206(1), on or between January 2010 through July 2013, by knowingly over- reporting business deductions, thus underreporting his income, and falsely claiming a lesser income tax on his tax returns for 2011 and 2012. The applicant's criminal conduct was unprofessional, unethical, and wholly inappropriate for a Reserve Commissioned Officer. Crimes of this nature caused doubt about the applicant's integrity, judgment, adherence to Army Values, and his potential for further military service. This was an administrative reprimand under the provisions of AR 600- 37 (Unfavorable Information) and not as punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). g. On 8 November 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Review Boards (DASA-RB) approved the applicant's retirement in lieu of elimination based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction submitted by the applicant, and the request for grade determination submitted by HRC. The DASA-RB determined that his service in the rank of MAJ was not satisfactory. h. DD Form 214, ending on 31 December 2017, shows the applicant was honorably retired from active duty by reason of unacceptable conduct: (1) Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank)) – MAJ. (2) Block 4b (Pay Grade) – O-4. 4. The applicant provides through counsel: a. Tully and Rinckey, PLLC, statement for applicant, dated 13 April 2020, which outlines the applicant's requested relief: (1) In 2008, he was promoted to the rank of MAJ. (2) In 2011, he transferred to the 451st Sustainment Command to serve as a G-3 Plans Officer. He was subjected to a hostile work environment, was retaliated against for making multiple Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, and had his rights repeatedly violated. (3) In November 2014, the applicant notified the 451st Human Resources section of several violations of applicable Army Regulations; specifically, that Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) B___ violated Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP), but no action was taken in regards to these complaints. A few days after the SHARP complaint was filed, the applicant filed DA Form 7279 (Equal Opportunity Complaint Form) which included the names of three witnesses who could verify the accuracy of that complaint. However, no investigation was conducted and no witness were ever interviewed. (4) On 2 December 2014, the applicant filed a complaint alleging an EO violation by LTC B___. No action was taken regarding this complaint. On 19 April 2015, the applicant submitted another EO complaint against LTC B___ and again, no action was taken to determine the veracity of this complaint. (5) On 21 April 2015, the applicant submitted DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request) alleging violations of Army Regulations by COL S___ and LTC B___. Despite numerous follow-ups with the EO office, there was no action taken to verify the veracity of the complaint or to reach a resolution of the underlying conduct that was the basis of the complaints. (6) In September 2015, the 79th Sustainment Support Command SHARP Coordinator dismissed the applicant's SHARP complaint, indicating the reason was for "closeout between the applicant and the 451st Headquarters and Headquarters Company commander regarding the SHARP concerns". By grossly mischaracterizing the applicant's SHARP complaint as mere concerns, the SHARP coordinator failed to take the complaint seriously. The applicant followed-up with several emails and phone calls; however, his attempts to ensure that a proper investigation was initiated were unsuccessful. (8) On 14 October 2015, the applicant submitted supplemental information to DA Form 1559. No action was taken. (9) On 17 February 2016, the applicant submitted a Memorandum for Record outlining previous instances of misconduct by COL H___. The applicant suffered from a back injury incurred during his 2005 deployment to Iraq. In the memorandum, the applicant indicated that COL H___ ordered him to remain on the first floor of the building, despite the fact that the applicant could navigate stairs while using handrails and the building was equipped with fully functioning elevators. The supposed justification for denying the applicant access to the second floor was due to his back injury. When the applicant attempted to resolve the issue, COL H___ informed the applicant that prohibiting him from accessing the second floor was legal. (10) On 16 July 2016, the applicant submitted a retirement packet to his chain- of-command. Staff Sergeant (SSG) R___ then emailed the applicant's retirement packet to the 451st Expeditionary Sustainment Command. The applicant was informed that his retirement packet could not be processed due to a flag on his record. On 23 September 2016, Master Sergeant (MSG) L___ informed the applicant that the flag for the Promotion Review Board was removed from Regional Level Application Software (RLAS). (11) In December 2016, the applicant was notified that he was being referred to a MEB due to his persisting back injury. On 2 December 2016, the applicant requested that his chain-of-command update his DA Form 7652 (Disability Evaluation System (DES) Commander's Performance and Functional Statement). On 12 December 2016, CPT S___ completed the form stating that the applicant was not able to perform his duties due to a lack of trust rather than a perceived physical or mental disability. CPT S___ also mentioned that the applicant was pending involuntary elimination as a result of multiple felonies for which he pled guilty. It was wholly illogical that a commander would make these statements when drafting a form pertaining to a Soldier's mental and physical capabilities. The determination that the applicant was not suffering from a physical disability is in complete opposition to the unit's prior determination barring the applicant from accessing the second floor of the building due to concerns for his physical safety. (12) On 14 July 2017, an OSRB was conducted regarding the applicant's OER. The OSRB concluded that sufficient evidence existed that warranted relief; specifically, the board found that incorrect raters prepared the applicant's OER covering period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. The raters listed did not supervise the applicant nor did they have authority to perform the duties as a supervisor. Due to these errors, the applicant's negative OER was removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) file. (13) On 8 November 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Review Boards approved the applicant's retirement under Docket Number AR20170010386 and determined that his service in the rank/grade MAJ was not satisfactory. On 6 December 2017, his retirement in lieu of elimination was approved and he was placed on the retired list. (14) On 15 December 2017, the applicant submitted a request for an IG investigation into the action of Major General P___ and MAJ S___ alleging abuse of authority and repeated violates of Army Regulations. However, his request was dismissed without action. c. Numerous DA Forms 67-9 administered during the period 12 August 2008 to 31 March 2013 showing: (1) Period covering 12 August 2008 to 11 August 2009, showing his rater as Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) K___ and Senior Rater as Mr. W___. His performance was rated at outstanding/best qualified and center of mass. (2) Period covering 12 August 2009 to 11 August 2010, showing his rater as LTC K___ and Senior Rater as COL G___. His performance was rated at outstanding/best qualified and above center of mass. (3) Period covering 12 August 2010 to 23 May 2011, showing his rater as LTC K___ and Senior Rater as COL G___. His performance was rated at outstanding/best qualified and center of mass. (4) Period covering 24 May 2011 to 31 March 2012, showing his rater as LTC J_ W_ and Senior Rater as COL W___. His performance was rated at outstanding/best qualified and above center of mass. (5) Period covering 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013, showing his Rater as LTC B___ and Senior Rater as COL J___. His performance was rated at satisfactory/fully qualified and center of mass. d. Orders Number B-09-805642 issued by HRC, dated 3 September 2008, showing the applicant was promoted to the rank/grade MAJ effective 22 August 2008. e. DA Form 4187, dated 26 June 2013, showing the applicant requested to be Released from Active Duty (REFRAD) for non-regular voluntary at age 60 with a desired retirement date of 1 October 2013. f. Email correspondence, Subject: Applicant Non-Regular Retirement, dated 6 August 2013, from MAJ F___ to MAJ M___ and Sergeant First Class (SFC) R___ regarding the applicant's REFRAD request. His DA Form 4187 indicated his REFRAD was for a non-regular voluntary retirement at age 60; however, it appeared the REFRAD was for personal reasons. The applicant requested to report to the transition point on 20 November with retirement on 1 December; which required him to have transition leave covering 21-30 November. Due to Thanksgiving, the applicant needed to transition before 28 November or wait until 2 December and would need leave days through 1 December. An approved DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) was required with the transition leave days or the DA Form 4187 needed revision. The Commanding General disapproved the action without explanation of options in lieu of REFRAD. g. Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Letter, dated 13 February 2014, thanking the applicant for exceptional effort spearheading recruiting initiatives at local recruiting centers which helped the command reach its retention objectives and for setting the standard of excellence for others to emulate. h. Two DA Forms 67-10-2 administered during the period 1 April 2014 to 27 August 2016: (1) Period covering 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, showing his rater as COL S___ and Senior Rater as COL N___. His performance was rated at proficient and qualified. (2) Period covering 1 April 2015 to 27 August 2016, showing his rater as Ms. M___ and Senior Rater as COL P___. His performance was rated at capable and qualified. i. DA Form 4187-1-R, dated 20 June 2014, showing the applicant's commander recommended approval for the applicant's request to REFRAD based on his situation. j. Memorandum for Record, Subject: Applicant Performance Potential TY 14, dated 25 November 2014, in which COL S___ stated during TY 14, the applicant reported directly to him during Recruiting/Retention events although he was neither his rater or senior rater. He observed the applicant's daily performance. The applicant worked tirelessly to ensure success of the overall mission and his performance indicated that he should be assigned to positions of increased responsibility. k. DA Form 7652, dated 8 December 2016, in which the applicant's commander stated the applicant was pending involuntary officer elimination as a result of multiple federal felonies for which he pled guilty to and was on probation for. The applicant was unable to perform the duties of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS); however, his inability was not related to any observed mental or physical disability. His inability to perform duties in his MOS was due to lack of trust. His access to the Army Reserves Network was been revoked and he had limited access to sensitive material. l. Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Violation of AR 600-20 and Dignity and Respect Policy by COL H___, dated 17 February 2016, in which the applicant states that on or about 24 October 2016, COL H___ violated 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) and 79th Sustainment Support Command's Dignity and Respect policy and AR 600-2, chapter 4, paragraph 19b(3) which states "Bullying is always committed with the intent to exclude or reject another from inclusion in a group." COL H___ ordered the applicant not to go to the 2nd floor of the 451st Sustainment Command building and abruptly removed the applicant from the office without allow his to gather his personal belongings. These actions were discoursing, belittling and prevented the applicant from participation in the unit and denied him services commonly available to other Soldiers. m. Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Notification of Retirement Action, dated 16 July 2016, in which the applicant requested REFRAD on 1 January 2017 and placement on the retired list on 15 January 2017. n. Email correspondence, Subject: Your Request, dated 23 September 2016, from MSG L___ notifying the applicant that his flag for the Promotion Review Board was removed from RLAS on 22 September 2016. o. Email correspondence, Subject: Meeting with COL P___, dated 14 October 2016, regarding a review of the applicant's retirement packet. p. Email correspondence, Subject: HRPAS action for applicant Self Voluntary Retirement Packet, dated 14 October 2016, in which SSG R___, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Human Resources Division, requested that 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Administrative Office submit the applicant's voluntary retirement packet to the next approval level. q. Email correspondence, Subject: Excess Leave for Retirement, dated 14 October 2016, in which SSG R___ submitted the applicant's DA Form 31 to M___. r. Email correspondence, Subject: For MEB Applicant Updated DA 7652 required, dated 6 December 2016, showing the applicant contacted CPT S___ regarding the status of his DA Form 7652. s. Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Notification of Retirement Action in lieu of Elimination, dated 3 February 2017, in which the applicant requested REFRAD on 1 December 2017 and placement on the retired list on 15 December 2017. t. OSRB Record of Proceedings for Docket Number AR2016005299, dated 14 July 2017, in which the Board determined the evidence and overall merits of the case were sufficient to warrant relief. The Board directed that the applicant's OER covering period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 be removed from his AMHRR; a memorandum inserted into his AMHRR annotating the period as non-rated time; and that all appeal documentation and/or investigations and inquiries to Docket Number AR2016005299 be removed from the applicant's AMHRR. u. HRC Memorandum for Record, Subject: Nonrated Statement, dated 10 August 2017; showing the applicant's evaluation report for period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 was declared nonrated and void. v. Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Memorandum, Subject: Retirement in Lieu of Elimination/Officer Grade Determination Case, dated 8 November 2017, showing the Grade Determination Review Board approved the applicant's request for retirement in lieu of elimination and determined his service in the rank/grade MAJ was unsatisfactory. Therefore, he was placed on the retired list in the rank of CPT. w. Headquarters, 451st Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Memorandum, Subject: Request for IG investigation of MG P___ and MAJ S___ for Abuse of Authority and Violation of U.S. Army Regulation, dated 8 December 2017, showing the applicant formally requested an IG investigation into the 79th Sustainment Support Command for selectively disregarding SHARP complaints, EO violations; and pending IG inspections based on bias against individual Soldiers. x. DD Form 214, ending on 31 December 2017, shows the applicant was honorably retired from active duty by reason of unacceptable conduct: (1) Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank)) – MAJ. (2) Block 4b (Pay Grade) – O-4. y. Excerpt of DA Form 2339, undated, showing the applicant elected to be processed for retirement at a continental U.S. location of his choice. ? BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon the documentation available for review, the applicant committed multiple acts of a criminal nature, the severity of which lead to the determination that his service in the rank of MAJ was not satisfactory. He requested and was approved for retirement in lieu of elimination and honorably retired. Based on the preponderance of the evidence service the Board found no error or injustice to warrant relief. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance before the Board is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. ? BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XXX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): N/A REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. AR 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations) governs the actions and composition of the Army Grade Determination Review Board and sets forth grade determination policy regarding the highest grade satisfactorily held for service/physical disability retirement, retirement pay, and separation for physical disability. a. Paragraph 2-4 (Grade determination considerations) a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, such determinations under this regulation are not punitive. The Army Grade Determination Review Board will consider each case on its own merits. Generally, determination will be based on the Soldier's overall service in the grade in question, either on active duty or other service qualifying the Soldier for retirement, receipt of retired pay, or separation for physical disability. Circumstances pertinent to whether such service is found satisfactory include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Medical reasons, which may have been a contributing or decisive factor in a reduction in grade, misconduct, or substandard performance. (2) Compassionate circumstances. (3) Length of otherwise satisfactory service in the grade in question, before and after the misconduct. (4) Performance level, as reflected in evaluation reports and other portions of the service record that reflect performance. In reviewing these matters, the Army Grade Determination Review Board will consider whether reporting officials were aware of the performance giving rise to the grade determination. (5) Nature and severity of misconduct, if any. Although the punishment an individual has received may be one factor in determining the seriousness of misconduct, the amount of punishment will not be considered in determining whether the individual has been "punished enough." Grade determinations are not considered punitive, and the standard for grade determinations is "highest grade satisfactorily served," not whether the individual has been sufficiently punished. (6) The grade at which the misconduct was committed. (7) The grade at which the misconduct was addressed by proper authorities. b. Paragraph 2-5 (Unsatisfactory service) states that service in the highest grade or an intermediate grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when: (1) Reversion to a lower grade was: * Expressly for prejudice or cause * Owing to misconduct * Caused by non-judicial punishment pursuant to UCMJ, Article 15 * The result of the sentence of a court-martial (2) There is sufficient unfavorable information to establish that the Soldier's service in the grade in question was unsatisfactory. One specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade. Retirement in lieu of or as the result of elimination action will not, by itself, preclude retirement in the highest grade; however, the underlying misconduct and/or sub-standard performance can result in a determination that service in grade was unsatisfactory. 3. AR 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides policy for the disability evaluation and disposition of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties due to physical disability. Paragraph 4-3g(2) (Soldiers absent without leave, undergoing or pending adverse actions or involuntary administrative separation, or with prognosis of imminent death) states that officers pending administrative elimination under AR 600–8–24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) are normally dual processed for the elimination action and completion of the Disability Evaluation System. For dual processing to occur, referral to the MEB must occur before the date the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) approves the officer's elimination. 4. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200009574 1 1