THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080005330 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, transfer of unfavorable information from the performance portion to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant, in effect, defers to his counsel.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 June 2002, and a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 26 June 2002, issued to the applicant by Major General (MG) Paul D. E____, Commander, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, and filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF, be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF.  Counsel also requests, in effect, that the applicant’s record then be forwarded to an appropriate selection board for promotion reconsideration.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant has one blemish on his record (i.e., the documents previously identified) for an inappropriate, yet consensual off duty relationship in which he was involved.  He also states that the applicant took full responsibility for his error in judgment and made no excuses.  He further states that the unfavorable information in the applicant’s record has served its intended purpose of punishment and motivation, as the applicant was passed over for promotion, although he has followed a path of personal and professional growth.  Counsel adds that the Department of the Army Suitability Board (DASEB) declined to transfer the unfavorable information in the applicant’s record to the restricted portion of his OMPF.  The bases for the DASEB decision were a lack of supporting statements from the applicant’s current and former chain of command and that transfer was not in the best interest of the Army.

     a.  Counsel provides a summary of the applicant’s military service, which started as an enlisted Soldier and led to an appointment as a commissioned officer in the infantry.  He highlights the applicant’s military training and varied duty assignments, including service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Counsel also lists the applicant’s awards and decorations.

     b.  Counsel provides information concerning the GOMOR the applicant received from MG E____ for conduct that involved a consensual, off duty relationship with an adult female, and is filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  He also provides a summary of information regarding the applicant’s appeal to the DASEB to have the GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF, which included a letter of support from MG E___. Counsel offers further information indicating that, in the processing of the applicant’s appeal, the DASEB contacted MG E_____ and informed him that the applicant had received a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER) in 1993, along with a GOMOR, and that the applicant was identified by the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Promotion Board to “show cause” for retention in his “Below the Zone” year.  Counsel also indicates that the DASEB suggested that the applicant would likely be identified to “show cause’ for his FY07 LTC “Promotion Zone” Promotion Board.  However, counsel adds that this was incorrect information because the applicant had previously submitted a rebuttal to the “show cause” that was approved and the “show cause” action was closed.  Nonetheless, MG E____ retracted his supporting memorandum.

     c.  Counsel cites Title 10, United States Code, section 1552 (10 USC 1552) and Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) that provide for the correction of errors in the record of a member of the military and Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) governing the recording, use, transfer, and removal of unfavorable information.

     d.  Counsel argues that the DASEB was unjust under the circumstances by tainting MG E____’s opinion under the guise of asking him to “clarify the intent” of his letter to the DASEB and then improperly disclosing information about a GOMOR (that the DASEB had removed from his OMPF years earlier) and that the applicant had a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER) in his OMPF.  Counsel provides a summary of the circumstances, applicant’s appeal, his former chain of command’s support, and the DASEB actions in November 1993 concerning that GOMOR and Relief for Cause OER.  In effect, the DASEB decided to remove the GOMOR from the applicant’s OMPF “on the basis of it being untrue or unjust;” however, the DASEB determined that the Relief for Cause OER was justified.  Counsel elaborates on the statements submitted in support by members of the applicant’s former chain of command to have the 1993 GOMOR and Relief for Cause OER removed from his OMPF.

     e.  Counsel offers excerpts from the statements of support provided by
5 General Officers that attest to the applicant’s professionalism, leadership, duty performance, moral character, and Warrior Ethos in various assignments from January 2003 to the present and which are presented in Exhibits 72 - 76.

     f.  Counsel asserts that the punishment imposed by the Article 15 for the applicant’s past actions and the intended purpose of the GOMOR to motivate the applicant to adhere to a future path of personal and professional growth have been served.  He adds that the unfavorable information has been a part of the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF for nearly 6 years and the applicant has been denied promotion by the FY06 LTC (“Below the Zone”) and FY07 LTC (“Promotion Zone”) promotion boards.  Nonetheless, counsel offers that the applicant’s record demonstrates he has maintained an outstanding record of service in both combat and garrison duties ever since their imposition.

     g.  Counsel offers excerpts from the applicant’s OERs that document his exceptional duty performance in various assignment spanning the period February 2001 through June 2007, which are presented in Exhibits 77 – 83.

     h.  Counsel concludes by stating it is in the Army’s best interest to transfer the unfavorable information to the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF to allow him to continue to serve and lead Soldiers.

3.  Counsel provides a Table of Exhibits that lists Exhibits 1 - 83, along with a description and the date of each exhibit, which is incorporated into this Record of Proceedings.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant initially enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and entered active duty in the Regular Army on 21 January 1981.  Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13F (Fire Support Specialist).  The applicant was promoted to the grade of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 on 1 October 1984.  He was honorably released from active duty on 21 January 1985 after completing
4 years active service.  The applicant was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) and, on 31 August 1987, he enlisted as a Cadet in the USAR Control Group (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps).

2.  The applicant’s records show he was appointed as a commissioned officer in the USAR, in the grade of second lieutenant, effective 13 May 1989 and with a date of rank of 24 May 1989.  Upon completion of the Infantry Officer Basic Course, he was detailed as an infantry branch officer.  The applicant’s records show he completed the Command and General Staff College, was promoted to the grade of major/pay grade O-4, effective 1 February 2002, and appointed as a commissioned officer in the Regular Army.

3.  On 26 June 2002, while the applicant was serving in the grade of major as a member of Company D, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Georgia, the Commanding General, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, issued a DA Form 2627 (Article 15) to the applicant for, on or about 15 February 2002 and on or about 1 May 2002, wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman, a woman not his wife; in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  This document shows the applicant did not demand trial by court-martial in the Article 15 proceedings; he requested a closed hearing and a person to speak in his behalf; and indicated that matters in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation would be presented in person.  This document also shows that in a closed hearing all matters presented in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were considered and the punishment imposed was a written reprimand, forfeiture of $2,000.00 pay per month for 2 months, of which $1,500.00 pay per month for 2 months was suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated by 22 December 2002.  This document further shows that the Commanding General directed that the
DA Form 2627 be filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

4.  On 26 June 2002, while the applicant was serving in the grade of major as a member of Company D, 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, Georgia, the Commanding General, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, issued a GOMOR to the applicant for an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with a married woman.  This document shows that the GOMOR was imposed as a punishment pursuant to findings of guilt determined at a formal hearing under Article 15, UCMJ, conducted on 25 June 2002.  This document also shows that the Commanding General directed the GOMOR be filed permanently in the applicant’s OMPF.

5.  A review of the applicant's OMPF revealed that the DA Form 2627 and GOMOR are filed in the performance portion of his OMPF.  This review also revealed that Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Special Review Boards, Alexandria, Virginia, memorandum, dated 5 March 2007, subject: Resolution of Unfavorable Information, is filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

6.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USA HRC), Alexandria, Virginia, MILPER Message Number 06-306, AHRC-MSP-O, subject: FY07 Lieutenant Colonel (Army Competitive Category), Maneuvers, Fires and Effects (MFE), Operations Support (OS), and Force Sustainment (FS) Zones of Consideration, issued 30 October 2006, shows, in pertinent part, that an MFE Selection Board was scheduled to convene on 27 February 2007 to consider eligible majors on the Active Duty List for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  This document also shows for MFE majors the “Promotion Zone” consisted of majors with an active date of rank (ADOR) of 2 June 2001 through 30 September 2002.

7.  The applicant’s name is not among those listed in the Lieutenant Colonel, Army Competitive Category, Selection Board Results for FY07, posted on the USA HRC website at https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active.  These results were posted on 31 July 2007.

8.  Headquarters, USA HRC, Alexandria, Virginia, MILPER Message Number
07-321, AHRC-MSP-O, subject: FY08 Lieutenant Colonel, Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE), Operations Support (OS), and Force Sustainment (FS) Zones of Consideration, issued 21 November 2007, shows, in pertinent part, that an MFE Selection Board was scheduled to convene on 12 February 2008 to consider eligible majors on the Active Duty List for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  This document also shows for MFE majors the “Above the Zone” consisted of majors with an active date of rank (ADOR) of 30 September 2002 or earlier.

9.  The results of the Lieutenant Colonel, Army Competitive Category, Selection Board Results for FY08 are not yet posted on the USA HRC website.

10.  In support of the applicant’s application, his counsel provides copies of
83 documents, identified as Exhibits 1 - 83, along with a description and the date of each exhibit.  Many of the documents were previously introduced and considered in this Record of Proceedings.  The remaining documents are identified and summarized, as follows.

     a.  Exhibit 1 (i.e., the DA Form 149) represents the applicant’s application.

     b.  Exhibits 2 - 17, 19 - 20, 22, 24 - 29, and 33 - 36, in pertinent part, document the applicant’s extensive military training and education, in both an enlisted and officer status, from 24 April 1991 through 17 November 2006.

     c.  Exhibits 18, 21, 23, 30 - 32, and 37 - 56, in pertinent part, document the applicant’s military awards and decorations, which include 2 awards of the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, 4 awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, 4 awards of the Army Commendation Medal, 6 awards of the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge (2nd Award), Expert Infantryman Badge, Presidential Unit Citation, Meritorious Unit Commendation, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal, British Army Parachutist Wings, and Cold War Recognition Certificate.

     d.  Exhibits 57 - 58 represent the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 26 June 2002, and DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 26 June 2002, that are filed in the performance section of the applicant’s OMPF.

     e.  Exhibits 59 - 64 document the applicant’s request that the GOMOR and DA Form 2627, dated 26 June 2002, be transferred from the performance to the restricted portion of his OMPF; that MG Paul D. E____ (the General Officer who originally directed the filing of the documents in the applicant’s OMPF) provided a letter in support of the applicant’s request for transfer of the documents to the restricted portion of his OMPF; and the DASEB decision that it is not in the best interest of the Army to transfer the documents to the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  Exhibit 62 consists of a 1-page copy of United States Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia, memorandum, dated 5 March 2006, subject: Rebuttal Request in Lieu of Elimination - MAJ [Applicant’s Name and Social Security Number], which represents the applicant’s request to continue to serve in lieu of elimination from the U.S. Army.

     f.  Exhibits 65 - 71, in pertinent part, document that a GOMOR, dated
3 May 1993, and DA Form 67-8 (Relief for Cause OER) covering the period from 25 January 1993 through 26 March 1993, were filed in the applicant’s OMPF; that the applicant’s rater, senior rater, reviewer, and post commander (at the time) subsequently requested removal of the OER and GOMOR, respectively; that the DASEB decided to approve the removal of the GOMOR (along with all associated documents) from his OMPF on the basis of it being untrue or unjust; however, the OER was transferred and filed in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  These exhibits also show that, in processing the request for transfer of the GOMOR and DA Form 2627, dated 26 June 2002, the DASEB disclosed to MG Paul D. E____, U.S. Army (Retired), that the applicant had a similar GOMOR (dated 3 May 1993) placed in his OMPF.

     g.  Exhibits 72 - 76 provide statements in support of the applicant’s application submitted by Brigadier General (BG) Michael S. T_____, Assistant Surgeon General, Office of The Surgeon General, Falls Church, Virginia; BG Ralph O. B____, Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs Middle East, The Joint Staff, Washington, District of Columbia; Major General (MG) Fred D. R_______, Jr., Commander, U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; MG Rhett A. H________, Chief, U.S. Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia; and Lieutenant General (LTG) Ricardo S. S______, U.S. Army (Retired).  The statements, in pertinent part, document the testimony of these 5 General Officers who have personal knowledge of the applicant’s professionalism, duty performance, personal character, ethical integrity, and “Warrior Ethos.”  In essence, they affirm that “we do not live in a zero defect Army,” advocate that the applicant’s career should not be ruined by an isolated incident, that the GOMOR and Article 15 have served their purpose to ensure the applicant learned and grew personally and professionally, and recommend removal of the derogatory information from the applicant’s OMPF.

     h.  Exhibits 77 - 83 represent 7 DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Reports) that span the period from 12 February 2001 through 6 June 2007.  The 7 OERs show, in pertinent part, that the applicant was rated “Best Qualified” by his senior raters on all 7 OERs, “Center of Mass” on 1 OER, and “Above Center of Mass” on 6 of the 7 OERs.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF. This document states that only those documents listed in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three sections:  performance, service, or restricted.  
Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that the DA Form 2627 is filed in either the performance or restricted section of the OMPF, as directed in Item 5 of the DA Form 2627.  Table 2-1 also provides regulatory guidance for filing administrative letters of reprimand, admonitions, and censures of a non-punitive nature.  It states, in pertinent part, that the letter, referral correspondence, member's reply, and other allied documents (if they are specifically directed for file by the letter or referral correspondence) will be filed on the performance section of the OMPF.  All other allied documents not listed will be filed in the restricted section of the OMPF.

12.  Paragraph 2-3 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in pertinent part, that the restricted section of the OMPF is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The release of information in this section is controlled.  It may not be released without written approval from the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (for enlisted Soldiers, formerly designated as Headquarters, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center) or the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) selection board proponent.  This paragraph also provides that documents in the restricted section of the OMPF are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; show corrections to other parts of the OMPF; record investigation reports and 
appellate actions; and protect the interests of the Soldier and the Army.

13.  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, ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files, and 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. 

14.  Army Regulation 600-37, Chapter 7 (Appeals and Petitions), provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF.  It states that appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information are to be directed to the DASEB.  Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and standards) of this regulation states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been 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 the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 

15.  Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 7-2b (Appeals for transfers of OMPF entries), contains guidance on transfers of OMPF entries.  It states, in pertinent part, that only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted section of the OMPF.  Appeals will normally be returned without action unless at least 1 year has elapsed since imposition of the letter and at least 1 evaluation report, other than academic, has been received in the interim.  It also states that appeals approved under this provision will result in transfer of the document from the performance section to the restricted section of the OMPF.  Paragraph 7-2c (Petition for transfer of Articles 15) of this Army regulation states that this provision is limited to records of nonjudicial punishment imposed under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, and applies only to members in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers.  Paragraph 7-2 also shows that GOMORs and records of nonjudicial punishment may be transferred upon proof that their intended purpose has been served or that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the Soldier concerned to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.  Claims that an Article 15 is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, will not be considered under this paragraph.  The authority to adjudicate such claims rests with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, under Army Regulation 15-185, after the recipient has exhausted all other means for administrative remedy as contained in Army Regulation 27-10.

16.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides policy and procedures for applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and for the correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army.  This Army regulation provides, in pertinent part, that requests should be sent to the ABCMR to correct an error or remove an injustice only after other available means of administrative appeal have been exhausted.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system and supports the objectives of the Army’s officer promotion systems, which include filling authorized spaces with the best qualified officers.  It also provides for career progression based upon recognition of an officer’s potential to serve in positions of increased responsibility.  Additionally, it precludes promoting the officer who is not eligible or becomes disqualified, thus providing an equitable system for all officers.

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-29, Chapter 7 (Special Selection Boards), provides that Special Selections Boards (SSBs) are governed by the same instructions provided to the boards that considered or should have considered an officer for promotion.  Paragraph 7-2 (Purpose of boards) states that SSBs may be convened under Title 10, United States Code, section 628, to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when Headquarters, Department of the Army discovers, in pertinent part, the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant and his counsel contend, in effect, the unfavorable information filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF should be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF and, as a result, the applicant should be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the GOMOR, dated 26 June 2002, and the DA Form 2627, dated 26 June 2002, are properly filed in the performance portion of the applicant’s OMPF.  By regulation, in order to remove the documents in question from the OMPF, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that the documents are untrue or unjust.  No such evidence has been provided in this case.  Therefore, the documents in question should not be removed from the applicant’s OMPF, as advocated by the General Officers who provide statements in support of the applicant in this case.

3.  The applicant’s request for transfer of unfavorable information filed in the performance portion of his OMPF has been carefully considered and found to have merit.  By regulation, if at least 1 year has elapsed since their imposition, appeals related to an Article 15 and/or GOMOR can be approved based on proof that they have served their intended purpose and that the transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The evidence of record shows that the incident for which the Article 15 and GOMOR were issued was based on an isolated lapse in judgment on the part of the applicant more than 6 years ago.  In addition, the applicant’s professionalism, character, leader attributes, skills, and actions since the time of the incident, as documented by his OERs, clearly show that the applicant has learned and grown both personally and professionally.  Moreover, the evidence of record shows that no less than 5 General Officers offer their endorsement of the applicant’s personal character and professionalism, attest to his worth and potential, and advocate his promotion and continued service in the U.S. Army.  Therefore, there is substantial evidence to conclude that it would serve the best interest of the U.S. Army to grant the requested relief in this case, which might assure the U.S. Army of the applicant's continued invaluable service. In this regard, it is noted that 4 of the 5  statements of support written by the General Officers were dated prior to the date that the Fiscal Year 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board convened on 12 February 2008.  

4.  In view of the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record to show that the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 26 June 2002, and DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 26 June 2002, were transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF on 11 February 2008.  In addition, as a result of this action, it would be appropriate to correct his record to show that the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Special Review Boards, Alexandria, Virginia, memorandum, dated 5 March 2007, subject: Resolution of Unfavorable Information, was also transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF on 11 February 2008.

5.  In view of the foregoing, if the applicant was not selected by the Fiscal Year 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE), Operations Support (OS), and Force Sustainment (FS), Promotion Selection Board, it would also serve the interest of equity to have the applicant's record placed before a SSB for promotion reconsideration under the criteria for the FY08 LTC MFE, OS, and FS, Promotion Selection Board that convened on 12 February 2008. Further, if the applicant is selected, his promotion effective date and date of rank should be assigned as if he had been originally selected under the FY08 LTC Promotion Selection Board criteria and he should be provided any and all back pay and allowances due as a result.

BOARD VOTE:

____X__  ____X___  ___X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

     a.  showing that the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 26 June 2002; General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 26 June 2002; and Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Special Review Boards, Alexandria, Virginia, memorandum, dated 5 March 2007, subject: Resolution of Unfavorable Information, were transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF on 11 February 2008; and


     b.  if the applicant was not selected by the FY08 LTC Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE), Operations Support (OS), and Force Sustainment (FS), Promotion Selection Board, submitting his corrected record to a duly constituted SSB for promotion consideration to LTC under the FY08 LTC (MFE) Promotion Selection Board criteria.

2.  If the applicant is selected for promotion by the SSB, his record should be corrected by establishing his LTC promotion effective date and date of rank as if he had been originally selected under the earlier criteria identified by the SSB, and by providing him any and all back pay and allowances due as a result.

3.  If the applicant is not selected for promotion by the SSB, he should be so notified by the appropriate Headquarters, USA HRC, promotion officials.  




      __________X____________
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080005330



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1