IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 MAY 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100009794 


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 reconsideration of his removal from the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) Colonel (COL) [O-6] Army Maneuvers, Fires, and Effects (MFE) Promotion Selection Board List.

2.  The applicant states the Secretary of the Army's (SA) decision is unjustified based on the facts and the recommendations of two U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USA HRC), Promotion Review Boards (PRB), and as supported by the recommendations of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 (DCS, G-1); Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) [ASA (M&RA)]; Vice Chief of Staff, Army (VCSA); and Chief of Staff, Army (CSA):

	a.  He respectfully requests that the SA review the decision to remove him from the O-6 promotion list and reinstate him to allow him to be promoted.  He adds the SA's decision runs counter to the SA's directive in regard to holding Soldiers to standard, which is what the applicant has done his entire career.

   b.  He was selected by the FY08 COL Army MFE Promotion Selection Board for promotion with a promotion date of 1 July 2009.

	c.  On 31 December 2008, he was notified that his promotion was on hold pending a PRB based on Equal Opportunity (EO) and Inspector General (IG) complaints made against him by one of his subordinates.


	d.  During 2009 his file was reviewed by two separate PRBs and both recommendations were that he should be promoted.  The DCS, G-1; ASA (M&RA); VCSA; and CSA all recommended his retention on the promotion list.  In January 2010, the SA directed the applicant's removal from the FY08 COL Army MFE Promotion Selection Board List.

	e.  A DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG]), dated 11 January 2010, specified he was removed for disciplinary action, which he states is unfounded.

	f.  While serving as the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-7 (DCS, G-7) Information Operations (IO) for the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) [4ID(M)] in Baghdad, Iraq, one of his subordinate officers filed EO and IG complaints against him and his Deputy.  This occurred one day after the officer received a "Below Center of Mass" Officer Efficiency Report (OER) from the Division Operations officer (DCS, G-3).  The officer had habitual performance and disciplinary issues the applicant attempted to resolve through regular verbal and written counseling.

	g.  All EO related charges were found to be unsubstantiated.  The IG report indicated the applicant created a hostile work environment for his subordinates.

	h.  He states his professionalism and leadership are supported by letters submitted by his subordinates and superiors.  In addition, Major General (MG) James D. T-----, Commanding General, 4ID(M) and Multi-National Division - Baghdad, issued him an "Above Center of Mass" OER.

   i.  He was selected for his current position by Lieutenant General John C.
K----- over nine lieutenant colonels and two colonels.  He has served successfully in the position for more than 2 years and he is now leading the Department of Defense's Strategic Communication Capabilities Based Assessment.

3.  The applicant provides documents pertaining to his O-6 selection, the EO and IG investigations, the PRBs, and other supporting documents that he identifies in an Index with Tabs 1-9.  On 20 April 2010, he provided additional information that he received from the Office of the Secretary of the Army.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Army commissioned officer.  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/pay grade O-5 on 1 May 2004.

2.  The applicant deployed to Iraq in November 2005 and served as the DCS,
G-7 (Information Operations) for a period of 12 months.  He was responsible for the synchronization, coordination, and supervision of the 4ID(M) and Multi-National Division-Baghdad information operations (IO).  His principle duties included integration of Division IO elements (operations security, electronic warfare, psychological operations, military deception, computer network operations), and supporting and relating activities into all operations in support of the Division Commander's desired effect.

3.  In early 2006, a subordinate commissioned officer in the G-7 section filed an IG complaint against the applicant and his Deputy alleging severe treatment of subordinates.  Based on possible racist activity, the IG referred the complainant to the EO office for handling of those issues:

	a.  The IG complaint consisted of seven allegations, two pertaining to the applicant, four pertaining to the Deputy G-7 [not addressed here], and one pertaining to the command leadership climate.

   b.  The investigator substantiated the allegation that the applicant improperly created a negative leadership climate in violation of Army Regulation 600-20 (Command Policy), chapter 1, paragraph 1-5(c), and Army Regulation 600-100 (Army Leadership), chapter 1, paragraph 1-8 (Values), and chapter 2 (Responsibilities).

	c.  He recommended the report be approved, close the case, and that the leadership climate be re-looked in 5 months.

4.  On 18 May 2006, the findings and recommendations of an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation of an alleged EO violation were forwarded to the Commander, Fires Brigade, 4ID(M).  There were three investigative areas of interest:  a formal EO complaint that alleged racial discrimination filed by a [subordinate] commissioned officer; an IG complaint consisting of seven allegations filed by the commissioned officer (two against the applicant); and a Command Leadership Climate Investigation of the G-7 section:

	a.  The review of the formal EO complaint found that, based on the evidence gathered and the facts listed, the commissioned officer's EO complaint was not substantiated as a violation of the EO policy.

	b.  The review of the IG complaints filed against the applicant found:

       (1)  the allegation was substantiated that the applicant improperly created a negative leadership climate.

       (2)  the allegation was substantiated that the applicant improperly demeaned his subordinates.

       (3)  The Command (Leader) Climate Investigation surveyed a total of
14 personnel in the G-7 section.  The overall analysis indicated that there was an unfavorable command climate in the section.  The ratings of officers in the
G-7 section reflected predominately favorable ratings, those of noncommissioned officers (NCOs) reflected predominantly unfavorable ratings, those of Soldiers reflected slightly favorable ratings, and those of the civilian interpreters reflected mostly favorable ratings.

5.  An OER on the applicant for the period 1 May 2006 through 19 January 2007 shows the rater, COL Henry A. K-------- III, DCS, G-3, evaluated his performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."   The senior rater, MG James D. T------, Division Commander, 4ID(M), evaluated his promotion potential as "Best Qualified" and potential as compared with officers senior rated in the same grade as "Above Center of Mass."  The senior rater indicated he currently senior rates 130 officers in the grade of O-5.

6.  Headquarters, 4ID(M), Permanent Orders Number 094-032, dated 20 April 2007, awarded the applicant the Meritorious Service Medal for exceptionally meritorious service while assigned as the DCS, G-7, from 27 April 2005 to
30 March 2007.

7.  A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) shows the applicant completed the Joint and Combined Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College, Norfolk, VA on 15 June 2007.

8.  An OER covering the period 20 January 2008 through 19 January 2009 shows the applicant's rater, COL Karen F. L----, Director of Operations, JIOWC, evaluated his performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."   The senior rater, MG John C. K-----, Commander, JIOWC, evaluated his promotion potential as "Best Qualified" and potential as compared with officers senior rated in the same grade as "Above Center of Mass."  The senior rater indicated he currently senior rates 27 officers in this grade [O-5] and that the applicant is in the top 1% of all LTCs he currently rates.

9.  The applicant was selected for promotion by the FY08 COL Army MFE Promotion Selection Board with a promotion eligibility date of 1 July 2009.

10.  The applicant's record was initially referred to a PRB by the General Officer Review Board during the post-board screening process:

	a.  The DAIG reported an allegation that the applicant improperly created a negative leadership climate.

	b.  The applicant provided a letter to the board, dated 10 January 2009.  He provided background on the circumstances surrounding the complaints, information on his performance and evaluation as the DCS, G-7 subsequent to the investigations, and a summary of his selection for his current duty position.  He requested favorable consideration and retention on the O-6 promotion list.

   c.  On 5 March 2009, a majority of the PRB board members recommended to the SA that the applicant be retained on the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List.

11.  Subsequent to the PRB's recommendation, the SA requested additional information for his consideration:

   a.  Upon review of the complete DAIG investigation, the previous SA directed that the applicant be referred to a new PRB, and the complete DAIG investigation be provided to the PRB for review.

	b.  The applicant was provided the opportunity to review the information and submit additional comments.

12.  The applicant provided a letter to the SA, dated 6 July 2009, requesting favorable consideration and retention on the O-6 promotion list.  He stated he had learned that the previous PRB did not have access to the investigating officer's full report.  The applicant was limited to a brief four-line synopsis of the report.  He asked the SA to take into consideration the post-investigation actions of his immediate chain of command, as well as the statements of those involved in the situation surrounding the complaints against him.  He also asked the SA to consider that he had served over 24 years without his character or leadership being brought into question.

13.  On 1 October 2009, a second PRB convened to consider the case of the applicant:

   a.  The members found the incident that resulted in the referral of the file of the applicant to the PRB, when taken in conjunction with his overall performance as demonstrated in his file, does not warrant removal from the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List.
   
   b.  The opinion of the majority of the members was that the applicant was fully qualified and among the best qualified for selection to meet the needs of the Army consistent with the requirements of exemplary conduct set out in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3583, as noted in the written instructions furnished to the board by the SA.
   
   c.  A majority of the board members recommended that the applicant be retained on the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List.
   
   d.  The Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) reviewed the action and found no legal objection to the Board's recommendation.
   
   e.  The DCS, G-1; ASA (M&RA); VCSA; and [VCSA for] the CSA recommended the applicant be retained on the promotion list.

   f.  On 10 January 2010, the SA directed the applicant be removed from the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List.

   g.  The applicant was notified of the SA's decision on 11 January 2010.

14.  On 1 February 2010, the Command Inspector General, USA HRC, notified the applicant that he had the option of sending a letter to the SA requesting reconsideration and providing additional documentation or he could request reconsideration through the ABCMR.  He was also advised that an officer whose name is removed from a promotion list continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion.  Accordingly, if the next board does not recommend promotion, it will constitute his second non-selection.

15.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents:

   a.  A timeline that provides an overview of his selection for colonel and the PRB process from November 2008 through January 2010.

   b.  Summary Sheet, subject:  PRB (Report Number 9-16, FY08 COL, MFE) Action Memorandum that shows the PRB's recommendation; Department of the Army (DA) staffing; and the SA's decision that the applicant be removed from the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List (Tab 1).

   c.  A DA Form 268, dated 11 January 2010, on the applicant shows in item 12 (A FLAG is removed, effective 9 January 2010 for the following reasons:) that an "X" was placed in the block "Disciplinary action taken" (Tab 1).

	d.  Headquarters, USA HRC, memorandum, dated 31 December 2008, that notified the applicant that information received from the DAIG warranted referral  to a PRB (Tab 2):
       (1)  The substantiated allegation was that the applicant improperly created a negative leadership climate.

       (2)  The evidence reflected that several Soldiers corroborated the severe treatment by the applicant, that he regularly belittled subordinates, and used harsh language and aggressive behavior.

	e.  A DA Form 268, dated 31 December 2008, pertaining to the applicant that shows a FLAG was initiated, effective 15 December 2008, based on elimination or removal from the selection list (Tab 2).

   f.  Headquarters, USA HRC, memorandum, dated 24 June 2009, subject:  Referral to a PRB, notified the applicant that subsequent to the staffing of the PRB recommendation, the SA requested additional information for his consideration.  Specifically, the Findings and Recommendations regarding the AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 18 May 2006, and DAIG Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 3 October 2008 (Tab 3):

       (1)  The redacted DAIG ROI Inquiry Executive Summary pertains to the applicant (and the Deputy G-7) during the period January through March 2006 was summarized in paragraph 3, above.

       (2)  The redacted Headquarters, 569th Brigade Support Battalion, Fires Brigade, 4ID(M), Camp Liberty, Iraq, memorandum, dated 18 May 2006, subject:  Findings and Recommendations Reference:  The AR 15-6 Investigation of Alleged Equal Opportunity Violation was summarized in paragraph 4, above.
   
   g.  The applicant's memorandum, dated 21 August 2009, to the President, PRB shows he requested favorable consideration and retention on the COL
(O-6) promotion list (Tab 4):
   
       (1)  He provided a summary of the circumstances pertaining to the EO and IG complaint.  He offered that he and the DCS, G-3, 4ID(M), had previously counseled the subordinate officer, both verbally and in writing on numerous occasions, for incidents which included missing movement to Iraq, continuous failure to report for duty, and an inability to accomplish assigned tasks.

       (2)  He acknowledged he was very blunt and had a "no nonsense" approach when dealing with his subordinates who contributed to the unfavorable command climate.  He added that as soon as he recognized his approach was a contributing factor, he immediately implemented changes in both himself and the organizational structure, which corrected the identified issues.

   h.  He provides an OER and 10 letters in support of his reinstatement on the promotion list and promotion to colonel.  The letters were submitted by two officers in his former chain of command [4ID(M)]; the DCS, G-3 Sergeant Major (SGM); five officers and an NCO who were members of the G-7 section at the time; and his current supervisor.

   i.  The applicant's OER covers the period 1 May 2006 through 19 January 2007.  The rater, COL Henry A. K-------- III, DCS, G-3, evaluated his performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."   The senior rater, MG James D. T------, Division Commander, 4ID(M), evaluated his promotion potential as "Best Qualified" and potential as compared with officers senior rated in the same grade as "Above Center of Mass."  The senior rater indicated he currently senior rates 130 officers in this grade [O-5] (Tab 5).

   j.  COL Henry A. K------- III states he served as the DCS, G-3, 4ID(M), and with the applicant from 2005 until 2007.  He states he counseled the applicant on the results of the AR 15-6 investigation.  The applicant acknowledged his shortcomings in his harshness in counseling subordinates.  He also took measures to address issues regarding the command climate and his organization improved significantly.  COL K------ notes that the two Soldiers most referenced in the AR 15-6 investigation were very substandard performers who failed to improve, even with repeated counseling.  Their evaluation reports reflected their poor performance and effort, and they were significant leadership challenges for the applicant (Tab 5).

   k.  SGM Terry A. G------ states he served as the DCS, G-3 SGM, 4ID(M), and with the applicant during Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07.  He was involved with counseling NCOs of his section and aware of the situations surrounding the AR 15-6 investigation.  He states the applicant successfully performed the duties and responsibilities of his position with professionalism and dedication (Tab 5).

   l.  LTC David L-------- states he served under the applicant as the DCS, G-7, Psychological Operations Officer from December 2005 to November 2006.  He states some members in the G-7 section were unwilling to do their share of the work, which resulted in other members of the section performing those tasks as well as their own.  He also states the applicant had an expectation that all members of the G-7 section would pull their own weight and, when they didn't, he responded with appropriate counseling and assistance.  He adds he believes the initiation of the EO complaint was a misuse of Army policy by non-performers in order to evade the consequences of their own poor performance (Tab 6).

   m.  Major (MAJ) Richard G. S------ states he served under the applicant as the Deputy G-7 from 2005 to 2007.  He states he was intimately aware of the command climate investigation.  He asserts that any negative descriptions of the applicant, his leadership style, capabilities or the climate of his section while serving as the DCS, G-7 are not accurate and they do not reflect accurately upon the applicant or the period of time that is in question (Tab 6).
   
   n.  MAJ Christopher M. M------ states he served under the applicant as the 4ID(M) Psychological Operations Officer and DCS, G-7 Information Operations Planner during Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07.  He states the applicant held a substandard officer and a substandard NCO to the same standard he held the rest of the personnel in the G-7 section.  As a result, there was a complaint filed by these individuals against the applicant and an investigation was conducted on allegations of discrimination.  He adds he witnessed nothing that could have warranted an EO or IG complaint (Tab 6).

   o.  Captain (CPT) Nathaniel B. D---- states he served under the applicant as the G-7, Chief of Operations in Iraq during 2006.  He adds that the applicant was consistently direct and forthright in his interactions with others, leaving little room for miscommunication.  CPT D---- states he counseled the substandard NCO in the G-7 involved in the complaint on many occasions for infractions including tardiness, disrespect to superior officers, and poor performance.  He adds that the applicant conducted himself in an extremely professional manner given the circumstances (Tab 6).  

   p.  CPT Charles D. W--- states he served under the applicant in the DCS, 
G-7, Information Operations section during Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07.  The applicant was an extremely personable and approachable officer who took the time to explain his intent and gave subordinates the opportunity to accomplish the mission.  He also states the applicant was well respected and acted in an exceedingly professional manner regardless of the situation.  He adds the applicant's attitude and professionalism never faltered during the EO and IG investigations.  He encouraged everyone to speak freely and tell the investigator exactly what they thought, regardless of the outcome.  He concludes that the applicant is a consummate professional who is morally just and dedicated to the accomplishment of the Army's mission (Tab 6). 
   
   q.  Sergeant First Class William G---- states he served under the applicant in the G-7 section.  He states the applicant was the most professional officer he has ever worked with.  The applicant mentored him, gave him guidance, and always took the time to ensure that his subordinates understood the task at hand, regardless of rank and position.  He adds that he is Hispanic, he was never mistreated or felt any discrimination of any kind, and he does not comprehend or agree with the nature of the complaints that led to the EO and IG investigations (Tab 6).
   r.  Mr. Mark H. J------, Senior Executive Service, Director, Joint Information Operations Warfare Center (JIOWC), San Antonio, TX, states the applicant currently serves as the Director of the Joint Strategic Effects Center.  He was specifically selected for the position by MG K----- based on his professionalism, demonstrated competence in Information Operations, and leadership.  He adds the applicant's performance has been exceptional in all respects, he strongly endorses his promotion to colonel, and requests favorable consideration of his case (Tab 7).

   s.  COL Karen F. L----, Director of Operations and Plans, JIOWC, San Antonio, TX, states she served with the applicant in Iraq:

       (1)  He demonstrated an untiring zeal to advance the integrated employment of Information Operations capabilities to accomplish operational and strategic objectives in Iraq.  He earned the reputation of an officer who was clearly ready for greater levels of responsibility.

       (2)  He has continued to stand out above his peers at the JIOWS.  He was selected by MG K----- to direct the newly created Joint Strategic Effects Center.  He has built a strong team and led the center to achieve great success.
   
       (3)  COL L---- strongly recommends favorable consideration of the applicant's case and his promotion to colonel (Tab 7).

   t.  An email message, dated 20 April 2010, with attachments from the Executive Officer to the SA:

		(1)  The Office of the SA, Washington, DC, memorandum, dated 19 March 2010, shows that COL Christopher H-----, Executive Officer to the SA, responded to the applicant on behalf of the SA regarding his request for reconsideration of his removal from the FY08 COL Promotion List.  He was assured that the SA carefully reviewed his complete board packet and applied significant thought in consideration of his record.  The applicant was informed that the SA’s decision to remove him from the Colonel’s Promotion List stands.  He was also informed that he would be considered by the next regular selection board to consider officers for promotion to colonel.

		(2)  An email message, dated 26 March 2010, that shows COL H-----, Executive Officer to the SA, shared previous email messages between the applicant and himself with the SA.  The SA authorized COL H---- to share the following with the applicant:  “COL H---- - As you know, I thought long and hard about [the applicant’s] case and I have NO interest in ending his career or hindering his eligibility for this year[‘s] colonels board.  In my mind, if he were to perform without further incidence and shows leadership and soldiering skills, and, if his packet were to come before me as a recommend for promotion, chances are I would approve.”

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system.  This regulation supports the objectives of the Army's officer promotion system, 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:

	a.  Chapter 1 (Introduction), section III (Policy), paragraph 1-15 (Post board screening), provides that a post-board screening will be conducted for officers selected for promotion to COL.  A board will review any adverse information in other official files.  For example, those maintained by the Criminal Investigation Command and the DAIG, including the restricted portion of the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  These files are screened to ensure that officers who have engaged in conduct that would warrant their non-selection for promotion, if known by the original selection board, are not promoted.  The files of those officers, along with the derogatory information, may be presented to a PRB to reevaluate the recommendation for promotion to COL.  The officers concerned will be notified and offered an opportunity to respond to the board.  The PRB will be conducted as prescribed in chapter 8 (Promotion Review Boards).

	b.  Paragraph 1-21 (Date of rank and effective date of promotion after a delay) provides that when a delay in promotion is ended, the promotion approval authority will determine if the officer was in fact unqualified (as opposed to ineligible) for promotion during all or part of the delay and will adjust the date of rank and effective date of promotion accordingly.

	    (1)  Information required to support the decision includes the following, as appropriate:  (1) reason for the delay; (2) date the case was closed and, if applicable, the date the officer met weight standards or passed the Army Physical Fitness Test; (3) type of punishment received; (4) date all punishment will be completed (including all periods of suspension and date all fines were paid); (5) date that the Memorandum of Reprimand was directed to be filed in the officer's OMPF (not the date the memorandum is actually imposed or filed); or
(6) other information as provided in Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions [FLAGS]).

	    (2)  When an officer's promotion suspension is ended favorably and he or she is exonerated of any wrongdoing, or a determination is otherwise made that the officer was qualified for promotion during the entire period of delay, the officer will be promoted with the active date of rank, effective date (for pay and allowances), and position on the active duty list (ADL) he or she would have received had there been no delay.

	c.  Chapter 8 (Promotion Review Boards), section I (Managing Promotion Review Boards), paragraph 8-8 (Board recommendation), provides that the PRB's recommendation is only advisory to the SA.  In cases involving promotion to the grade of colonel or below, the board's report will be forwarded to the SA who, on behalf of the President, may remove from the promotion list the name of the officer, in a grade above second lieutenant, retain the officer on the promotion list, return the report to the DCS, G-1, or direct other appropriate action.

	    (1)  Paragraph 8-10 (Effect of removal) provides that an officer whose name is removed from a promotion list continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion under Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 629(c) and 579(c).  The next regular selection board convened to consider officers for promotion to that grade and competitive category will consider the officer (if otherwise eligible), provided this removal action does not constitute the officer's second non-selection for separation purposes.  If the next board does not recommend promotion, this will constitute the officer's second non-selection.

	    (2)  If the next board recommends promotion, the officer may petition the SA to be granted the same DOR and position on the ADL the officer would have had if the officer's name had not been removed from the promotion list.

	    (3)  If the next selection board that considers an officer in a grade below colonel does not recommend the officer for promotion, or if the officer's name is again removed (either from the report of the selection board or from the promotion list), or, in the case of promotion to grades above captain, the Senate does not give its advice and consent to the promotion, the officer will be considered for all purposes to have twice failed selection for promotion.

17.  The USA HRC website at:  https://www.hrc.army.mil shows the FY10 COL Army/LTC Selective Continuation Selection Board is tentatively scheduled to convene from 8 June to 25 June 2010.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the SA should reconsider his decision to remove him from the FY08 COL Army MFE Promotion Selection Board List based on the facts and the recommendations of two PRBs; the recommendations of the DCS, G-1, ASA(M&RA), VCSA, and [VSCA for] the CSA; and his overall service.

2.  The applicant's responsibilities and principal duties as DCS, G-7, 4ID(M), in a wartime theater of operations required the cooperation and completion of all assigned tasks by each commissioned officer and NCO in the section.  This did not always occur and the applicant sometimes demanded the required effort from those individuals whom he believed were not performing to standard.  

3.  The AR 15-6 investigation shows:

	a.  The formal EO complaint review found that the subordinate officer's formal EO complaint against the applicant was not substantiated as a violation of the EO policy.

	b.  The IG complaint consisted of two allegations pertaining to the applicant and one pertaining to the command leadership climate:

       (1)  The two allegations were substantiated.

       (2)  The overall analysis of the Command (Leader) Climate Investigation indicated that there was an unfavorable command climate in the section and that a re-look should be conducted in 5 months to check the leadership climate.

4.  The applicant's rater (DCS, G-3) counseled the applicant on the results of the AR 15-6 investigation.  The applicant acknowledged his shortcomings and took measures to address issues regarding the command climate.  The DCS, G-3, confirmed that the applicant's organization improved significantly.

5.  The applicant's OER that was prepared subsequent to the investigation shows his rater [the DCS, G-3] evaluated his performance and potential as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."  His senior rater [the Commanding General, 4ID(M)] evaluated his promotion potential as "Best Qualified" and potential as compared with officers senior rated in the same grade as "Above Center of Mass."

6.  Subsequent to his assignment as the DCS, G-7, 4ID(M), the applicant was selected to serve as the Director, Joint Strategic Effects Center, JIOWC, San Antonio, TX.  During this period, he continued to stand out above his peers as documented by his latest OER covering the period 20 January 2008 through
19 January 2009.

7.  The applicant was selected for promotion by the FY08 COL Army MFE Promotion Selection Board:

	a.  His record was initially referred to a PRB during the post-board screening process.

	b.  A majority of the board members recommended to the SA that the applicant be retained on the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List.

8.  The previous SA directed that the applicant be referred to a new PRB, along with the complete DAIG ROI:

	a.  The applicant was given the opportunity to provide evidence in support of his request for reinstatement on the Standing Promotion List.

	b.  He provided 10 letters of support from both superiors and subordinates to provide a balanced view of his character and potential to serve the Army:
   
       (1)  The applicant's current senior rater [a Senior Executive Service official] attests that the applicant's performance has been exceptional in all respects.  He strongly endorses his promotion to colonel and requests favorable consideration of his case.
   
	    (2)  A fellow senior commissioned officer [who served in the 4ID(M) at the time] attests that the applicant earned the reputation of an officer who was clearly ready for greater levels of responsibility.  This officer now serves as the applicant's rater and strongly recommends favorable consideration of the applicant's case and his promotion to colonel.

       (3)  The applicant's rater at the time [DCS, G-3] believes the applicant should be promoted to colonel.  He adds "I have no reservations about his abilities, his values, or his love for our Soldiers."

	    (4)  The DCS, G-7 SGM, 4ID(M), at the time attests that the applicant successfully performed the duties and responsibilities of his position with professionalism and dedication.

	    (5)  The applicant's supporters, five commissioned officers and one senior NCO who served in the DCS, G-7 at the time, submitted character reference letters.  These six individuals represent nearly one-half of the individuals who 


were assigned to the DCS, G-7.  They attest to the applicant's integrity and professionalism, and question the validity of EO and IG complaints that were filed by two substandard performers.

9.  A majority of the board members of the second PRB recommended to the SA that the applicant be retained on the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List:
   
   a.  OTJAG reviewed the action and found no legal objection to the Board's recommendation.
   
   b.  The DCS, G-1; ASA (M&RA); VCSA; and [VCSA for] the CSA recommended the applicant be retained on the promotion list.

   c.  On 10 January 2010, the SA directed the applicant be removed from the FY08 COL Army MFE Standing Promotion List.

10.  It is noted that the DA Form 268, dated 11 January 2010, shows that an "X" was placed in the block "Disciplinary action taken."  The "X" should have been placed in the block "Other final action."  This Record of Proceedings serves to acknowledge and correct this error, which is deemed harmless to the applicant's case.

11.  The applicant was ineligible for promotion during the period of service under review based on the process pertaining to the review of his promotion list status.

12.  In March 2010, the SA reconsidered his decision to remove the applicant from the Colonel’s Promotion List and affirmed his decision.

13.  The Board carefully considered the applicant's request.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s request and the facts surrounding this case, the Board concludes that the applicant’s removal from the Colonel’s Promotion List was authorized under Army regulation and policy.  In addition, records show his request for reinstatement on the promotion list was appropriately reviewed, and the recommendations of the two PRB's and senior Army staff were considered prior to the SA’s decision.  In fact, the most recent communication between the applicant and executive officer of the SA confirms that the SA's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.  In view of all of the foregoing, the Board finds no error in this case.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement on Colonel’s Promotion List.


14.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ___X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _XXX   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100009794



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100009794



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1