IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  9 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110024374 


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:

* removal of an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 20060701 thru 20070214 signed by Colonel (COL) CT (hereafter referred to as the contested report) 
* replacement of the contested report with an OER for the period 20060701 thru 20070713 (hereafter referred to as the revised report) signed by Brigadier General (BG) DN as the rater and senior rater
* consideration by a special selection board (SSB) convened under the criteria for the 2007 Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) – COL, Army Promotion List (APL), Department of the Army (DA) Mandatory Selection Board
* recreation of a proper record and to be granted the same date of rank (DOR) as if selected by the 2007 LTC – COL APL DA Mandatory, Selection Board
* all due back pay and allowances as a result of these corrections 
* an investigation under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) inquiring into the status of an OER he signed

2.  He states the contested report was erroneously entered into the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) because he did not sign this report.  He believes the rater's intent was to prejudice his selection for promotion to the rank/pay grade of COL/O-6 by future DA selection boards.

3.  He believes electronic manipulation may have occurred for the following reasons:

* COL CT had retired and he could not contact her to request she forward the OER
* on two occasions prior to COL CT’s retirement, she tried to order him to sign a referred OER and he refused
* COL CT vigorously attempted to make a referred OER as a matter of record but decided not to press forward after reviewing supporting statements from other officers who had knowledge of the situation
* he could not appeal the contested report until it was part of his record, therefore substituting the OER skirts the appeals process
* he was not aware until recently that COL WA had filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint against COL CT on his behalf which alleged she had a vendetta against him
* COL CT was later counseled by the Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff who ordered her to stay away from him
* he also signed a different OER for the same period written by COL CT with the understanding it would be the one included in iPERMS but it was not filed

4.  The applicant provides:

* contested report containing his digital signature
* revised report 
* letters of support
* an email transmission

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  After having prior enlisted service in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG), the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the CAARNG on 1 September 1987.  He was promoted to the rank/pay grade of LTC on 17 April 2004.  

3.  A review of his iPERMS file shows he received three OERs in the rank of LTC prior to the period of the contested report.  These reports all show he was rated as follows:

   a.  Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation) (Rater) - an “X” was placed in the “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” blocks.
   
   b.  Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance) – he accomplished many tasks in an outstanding manner; exhibited tremendous potential, and received awards for excellence.  
   
   c.  Part VIIa (Promotion Potential to Next Higher Grade) (Senior Rater) – an “X” was placed in the “Best Qualified” block on all three reports.
   
   d.  Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Other Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade) – “Center of Mass” on all three reports.
   
4.  His record contains a memorandum, subject:  Results of Mandatory Promotion Board Consideration, Non-Selection, dated 7 March 2008, which shows he was not among those selected for promotion by the 2007 LTC-COL APL DA Mandatory Selection Board.  

5.  The contested report was digitally signed by the rater and senior rater on 
9 February 2009 and shows it was digitally signed by the applicant on 6 February 2009.  It was added to his iPERMS record on 20 February 2009.  The report contains the following entries:

	a.  Part I (Administrative Data):

		(1)  Block i (Period Covered) – 20060701 thru 20070214.

		(2)  Block j (Rated Months) – 8.

	b.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism (Rater)):

		(1)  Block a (Army Values) – he received all "yes" ratings.

		(2)  Block b (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) – the Physical, Interpersonal, Tactical, Communicating, Decision-Making, Executing, and Assessing blocks were checked and he received all "yes" ratings.

	c.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation Rater)):

		(1)  Block a – An "X" was placed in the "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" block. 
		
		(2)  Block b – The rater wrote, "The applicant was assigned to the J7 Directorate upon its initial stand-up with his assigned focus area being joint military education.  He completed AJPME (Advanced Joint Professional Military Education) during this rating period."

		(3) Block c – "The applicant should be considered for promotion with his peers."

	d.  Part VII (Senior Rater):

		(1)  Block a - An "X" was placed in the "Fully Qualified" block and an "X" was placed in the "No" block indicating a completed DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form) was not received and considered in his evaluation and review. 

		(2)  Block b – He was rated as "Center of Mass" when compared with other officers of the same rank.

		(3)  Block c – The senior rater wrote, "The applicant worked hard to develop a joint education program for the CAARNG.  He coordinated with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) J7 to establish training.  Additionally, he completed the AJPME course in an effort to become a subject matter expert for the department.  The applicant should be promoted with his peers."

6.  The applicant’s records also contain a letter addressed to COL CT from COL WA, dated 11 March 2009.  This letter requested the rater sign the reviewing officer’s block and instructed her to check the “concur” or “nonconcur” block of the State Active Duty Evaluation of Performance Form for the period 1 July 2006 through 31 January 2007.  This report was written by COL WA on the applicant’s duty performance for that period.  Further review of his records show the form remains unsigned by COL CT.  

7.  On 20 October 2009, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the President of the 2010 LTC-COL APL DA Mandatory Selection Board.  He indicated that his Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) did not include OERs for the periods 1 July 2006 through 14 February “2009” and 1 September 2007 through 
31 August 2008.  The OERs for these periods were drafted but then were withdrawn by COL CT who subsequently retired before completing the reports.  He indicated he had and would continue to work with his chain of command to address the unrated periods.  

8.  His record further shows he was not selected for promotion by the 2010 LTC-COL APL DA Mandatory Selection Board. 

9.  The revised report was electronically signed by the rater who was also the senior rater on 2 March 2010.  This report is not signed by the applicant.  The report contains the following entries:

	a.  Part I, Block i – 20060701 thru 20070213.

	b.  Part I, Block j – 12.

	c.  Part IV, Block a – he received all "yes" ratings.

	d.  Part IV, Block b (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) – the Physical, Conceptual, Technical, Learning, Executing, and Assessing blocks were checked and he received all "yes" ratings.

	e.  Part V, Block a – An "X" was placed in the "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" block. 
		
	f.  Part V, Block b – The rater wrote, "[The applicant] was important to the success of creating and implementing the Joint Force Headquarters J-7.  His role in developing the J7's organization, goals, objectives, funding requirements for internal operations and training of the Military Department's selected Joint Staff were to standard.  Representing the J7, he prepared and presented a decision brief to the Deputy Adjutant General – Joint Staff, Chief of Staff – Joint Staff, and to the Plans and Operations Officer.  This became the "baseline" for the organizations, activities and funding of the J7.  [The applicant] was very involved in the process that made it possible for California to be one of the first states to receive Joint Staff Training and he ensured the participation of the department's staff officers; not only in JPME, but in the Joint Task Force Commander's Course.  He showed professional development by gaining joint operational knowledge, experience, and skills.  At one time he was simultaneously enrolled, and ultimately successfully completed, three online military courses:  the JSSC (Joint Staff Support Center), Defense Strategy Course, and the AJPME." 

	g. Part V, Block c – "Completed the Defense Strategy Course; the Joint Staff Training Course; enrolled in the AJPME Course."

	h.  Part V, Block d (Identify any unique professional skills or areas of expertise of value to the Army that this officer possesses) – "The joint career path:  J5 Strategic Planning, J3 Operational Planning, J4 Logistics."

	i.  Part VII, Block a - An "X" was placed in the "Fully Qualified" block and an "X" was placed in the "Yes" block indicating a completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received and considered in his evaluation and review. 

	j.  Part VII, Block b – He was rated as "Center of Mass" when compared with other officers of the same rank.

	k.  Part VII, Block c – The senior rater wrote, "[The applicant] continually produces products  that meet the standards of his profession.  He has helped Joint Force Headquarters – California to remain competitive in joint development within the military and interagency communities.  When tasked, [the applicant] produces quality products.  I recommend that he be assigned to division staff where he can to [sic] increase his potential for responsibility.  [The applicant] demonstrates a "can do" attitude, is disciplined, and dedicated.  [The applicant] should be considered for promotion with his peers."

10.  A Headquarters, CAARNG memorandum, dated 1 August 2011 shows he was selected for retention by the 2011 Officer Selective Retention Board.  The board recommended continued service for 1 year and stated he would be considered again in calendar year 2012.

11.  The applicant's record contains a memorandum which shows he was not selected for promotion by the 2011 LTC-COL APL DA Mandatory Selection Board. 

12.  A review of the transaction history log in the applicant's iPERMS record shows that in December 2011 the applicant requested to remove the contested report from his AMHRR and consideration for promotion under an SSB.  His request was denied and he was advised to appeal to the ABCMR.

13.  The applicant provided five letters of support from individuals who had firsthand knowledge of the alleged vendetta COL CT had against him.  

	a.  Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) TG, who was the Air National Guard Readiness Advisor for the J3 Operations Directorate, Joint Staff during the period of the contested report wrote:
COL CT erroneously states in Part IV, Block a of [the applicant's] OER, that she had to relieve him from joint education programs SOPs.  The fact is that [the applicant] was the first officer of the 54 States to develop and post Standard Operating Procedures for joint education programs…It was my personal observation and also that of the NGB J7 staff, that [the applicant] never stopped working on [a] higher priority task as COL CT alleges…[The applicant] effectively prioritized programs and projects with the apparent exception when COL CT gave him direct orders, via email, to drop California candidates from these programs or make changes.  COL CT's decisions were often unexplained but the applicant dutifully complied.  

	b.  COL NR, who was the Joint Task Force Vista Commander, Operation Jump Start states, in part:

Within the first 30 days of his arrival, [the applicant] trained a 20-person staff and implemented the SOP.  The work ethic and high degree of dedication he displayed in accomplishing this challenging task are uncharacteristic to any assessment that states he requires "constant direct supervision" or that he "struggles" to produce necessary products in a timely manner.  I support [the applicant's] OER appeal and will answer all questions about his experiences and observations of him.  

	c.  COL MB, Chief, Joint Exercise Division at the time, states:

I worked with [the applicant] during the rating period 01 Sep 2007 to 31 [sic] on Vigilant Guard 08 after COL CT officially assigned him as the California National guard Budget Officer for Vigilant Guard ‘08.  [The applicant] demonstrated his military bearing, loyalty and commitment to his director/rater, COL CT by potentially diverting adverse action or embarrassment to her by recommending this course of action…It was very perplexing, therefore, when COL CT removed him from budget duties, against our recommendation to retain him.  COL CT's comments about [the applicant's] professional bearing and her failure to acknowledge his professional skills are completely out of line with my, and my staff's, experience with his job performance.   

	d.  Lt Col (Retired (Ret)) CM, U.S. Air Force, former Joint Specialty Officer, wrote:

During 1 Jun 07 to 31 Aug 07, I was assigned to backfill [the applicant] as the Joint Force Headquarters/J7 Joint Training and Education Branch Chief.  [The applicant] had arranged for electronic and hard copies of the AJPME, the Joint Task Force State Staff Training Course, and Joint Task Force Commanders Course to be delivered to COL CT prior to his departure.  COL CT insisted I contact [the applicant] for electronic copies, with the intent of posting them to the J7 website.  [The applicant] flew to Sacramento, apparently at his own expense in order to retrieve the electronic copies…My encounters with [the applicant] have always been professional, and it is my opinion that he always has the best interest of the CA National Guard at heart.  

	e.  COL (Ret) WA, the former CAARNG Inspector General (IG) during the period of the contested report wrote:

I feel partly responsible for COL CT's adamant refusal to rate [the applicant].  From my office as the Military Department Inspector General, I directly observed COL CT use her position and authority to abuse [the applicant] by shunning him, ostracizing him from other J7 staff members, meetings, and activities.  COL CT would come into my office to discuss her inability to tolerate even the mere presence of [the applicant].  She would lean forward on my desk and describe how she could not stand [the applicant].  It was my opinion that her behavior was immature and irrationally punitive.  

[The applicant] showed me quite a few emails to COL CT reminding her that he had not received any OERs from her.  Despite these repeated reminders, he alleges that COL CT did four things:  (1) she knowingly delayed rating [the applicant]; (2) she prepared OERS so unfavorable that the reviewing officer "non-concurred and ordered her to prepare the required OERs; (3) COL CT was so intent on firing [the applicant] that she lied; and (4) she retired knowing that she had refused to prepare appropriate OERs for [the applicant].  As the former Director of Personnel for the State, COL CT was very aware that missing OERs were a cause for non-selection by promotion boards and that it would result in [the applicant's] removal from active duty. 

Despite [the applicant's] best efforts, COL CT refused to rate him.  By retiring, she removed herself from oversight.  The State Military Department had putative knowledge that COL CT is alleged to have an irrational hatred of [the applicant] and any OERS written by her would be reflective of that hatred.  [The applicant] requested a substitute chain of command because the original chain of command no longer existed.  It was within the purview of the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Adjutant General of the Joint Staff Division to correct this issue.

14.  A review of his iPERMS record shows all OERs subsequent to the contested report contain the following ratings and comments:

	a.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism (Rater)) – all “Xs” were placed in the “Yes” blocks.

	b.  Part Va – All “Xs” were placed in the “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” block.

	c.  Part VIIa – All “Xs” were placed in either the “Best Qualified” or “Fully Qualified” blocks.

15.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports which includes preparation of the 
DA Form 67–9.

	a.  Chapter 3 governs evaluation principles.  It states, rating officials have a responsibility to balance their obligations to the rated individual with their obligations to the Army.  

   b.  Rating officials will prepare evaluation reports that are forthright, accurate, and as complete as possible within the space limitations of the form.  This responsibility is vital to the long-range success of the Army's mission.  With due regard for the rated Soldier's current rank or grade, experience, and military schooling, evaluations will cover failures as well as achievements.  Evaluations normally will not be based on a few isolated minor incidents.
   
   c.  The rating chain will make honest and fair evaluations of Soldiers under their supervision.  On the one hand, this evaluation will give full credit to the rated individual for their achievements and potential and on the other hand, rating officials are obligated to the Army to be discriminating in their evaluations so that Army leaders, selection boards, and career managers can make intelligent decisions.

	d.  Rating officials will convey a precise but detailed evaluation to convey a meaningful description of an officer's performance and potential.  Army selection boards and career managers use this information to base decisions.
	e.  A thorough evaluation of the Soldier is required.  Therefore, comments which are too brief are prohibited.  Unqualified superlatives or phrases are also prohibited, particularly if they may be considered trite.

	f.  Chapter 5 establishes policies and procedures for applying the ERS to the ARNG.  This chapter will be consulted first on any questions pertaining to ARNG evaluations.  The State military personnel officer will ensure OERs reach the ARNG Readiness Center not later than 120 days after the ending day of the report.  Timely submission of reports is a consideration in view of their impact on personnel actions.  Because personnel actions are based on available records, late submission of an evaluation report may result in inequity to either the individual or the ARNG.  Centralized selection, promotion, and school boards schedule will be closely monitored to ensure eligible reports, both mandatory and optional, are forwarded to HQDA in sufficient time to be included in a Soldier’s board file.

16.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides procedural guidance for completing and submitting evaluation reports to HQDA.

	a.  Paragraph 2-8 describes the mandatory narrative comments which must be entered by the rater in Part Vb of the DA Form 67-9.  It states the rater will comment on specific aspects of the rated officer's performance.  These comments are mandatory and at a minimum, they should address the key items mentioned in the duty description in part III and, as appropriate, the duty description, objectives, and contributions portions of the OER support form.  Comments may address the rated officer's demonstrated professionalism and/or ability to maintain required standards for credentialing or certification, foreign language skills, or high-level security clearances.

	b.  Chapter 6 describes the procedures for filing an appeal.  It states the appellant should begin the process by specifically identifying those entries or comments to be challenged, the perceived inaccuracy in each entry or comment, the evidence necessary to prove the alleged inaccuracy, and determine where and how to obtain such evidence. 

	c.  Paragraph 6-2 states third-party statements form the basis of most substantive appeals:  "Third parties" are persons who have official knowledge of the rated individual's duty performance during the period of the report being appealed.  Statements from individuals who establish they were on hand during the contested rating period and who served in positions from which they could observe the appellant's performance and their interactions with rating officials, are both useful and supportive.  
17.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes, in part, policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS).  

     a.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s non-selection by a promotion board and, had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.  

     b.  Paragraph 3-19 contains guidance on promotion reconsideration boards.  It states, in part, that in order to find a material error, a determination should be made that there is a fair risk that one or more of the following circumstances was responsible:  

          (1)  One or more of the evaluation reports seen by the board were later deleted from an officer's AMHRR; 

          (2)  One or more of the evaluation reports that should have been seen by a board (based on the announced cut-off date) were missing from an officer's AMHRR; 

          (3)  One or more existing evaluation reports as seen by the board in an officer's AMHRR were later modified; 

          (4)  Another person's adverse document had been filed in an officer's AMHRR and was seen by the board; or 

          (5)  An adverse document, required to be removed from an officer's AMHRR as of the convening date of the board, was seen by the board.

      c.  Paragraph 3-19 also states a special board will not be used when an administrative error was immaterial, or the officer in exercising reasonable diligence could have discovered and corrected the error or omission in the AMHRR or the officer could have taken timely corrective action.
18.  Army Regulation 15-6 establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive.  It states an investigation under the provisions of this regulation is an administrative fact-finding procedure which may designate an investigation or a board of officers.  The proceedings may be informal or formal. 

19.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552 provides that the Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.  The law further states that corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians of the executive part of that military department. This provision of law is the basis for the operations of the ABCMR.

20.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) governs the operations of the ABCMR.  The regulation states the ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to remove the contested report from his records and replace it with the revised report signed by BG DN as the rater and senior rater, and for promotion consideration to COL by an SSB, was carefully considered.

2.  The contested report has the appearance of an unfair and unjust appraisal of the applicant’s demonstrated performance and potential.  It appears the rater intentionally rendered a two-line evaluation and further delayed signing the contested report despite repeated efforts on the applicant's behalf.  

3.  He provided several letters of support and all of these letters are from officials who had firsthand knowledge of his performance at the time the contested report was rendered and/or had personal interaction with the applicant's rater.  Although these letters are not a requirement, they add more weight to the applicant's allegations.  

4.  All letters confirm that the applicant’s duty performance was satisfactory or better.  A letter from the former State IG confirms that the rater purposely set out to ostracize the applicant from his peers and she verbally expressed her inability to tolerate the mere presence of the applicant.  All authors supported the applicant's appeal and felt his rater's comments were unjustified.

5.  The thru date of the contested report is 14 February 2007; however, the rating chain signed the report on 9 February 2009 and it was filed in iPERMS the same month.  This is nearly 2 years after the thru date of the contested report.  Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 623-3 states late submission of an evaluation report may result in inequity to either the individual or the ARNG.  

6.  Part Vb of the contested report as written by his rater contains the following comments:  "The applicant was assigned to the J7 Directorate upon its initial stand-up with his assigned focus area being joint military education.  He completed AJPME during this rating period."  The fact that the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" block does not make up for the regulatory requirement to provide mandatory comments which describe the applicant's performance or potential during the period of the contested report.   

7.  Neither of the two sentences as provided by the rater comment on specific aspects of the applicant's performance, which is mandatory.  Army Regulation 623-3 and Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 strictly prohibit comments which are too brief and state rating officials will convey a precise but detailed evaluation of an officer's performance and potential during the rating period.  

8.  Selection boards and career managers use evaluation reports to base decisions for promotions and future assignment considerations.  

   a.  His records went before the 2007 LTC-COL APL DA Mandatory Selection Board without an OER for the period in question and he was not selected for promotion by this board.  
   
   b.  After the contested report was filed in his records, he was passed over for promotion to COL by the 2010 and 2011 selection boards (and, presumably, the 2008 and 2009 boards) as well.  
   
   c.  While the missing evaluation may not be the sole reason for nonselection, the contested report as written is an unjust and inequitable document which only serves to further hurt his military career.  
   
   d.  Army Regulation 135-155 states missing, deleted, or revised evaluation reports form the basis for a material error and may be used to justify the requirement for an SSB.  

9.  Although the contested OER was neither adverse nor referred, it contained incorrect and inaccurate errors and/or injustices.  As such, it would serve in the interest of justice to:

   a.  remove the contested report and replace it with the revised report for the rating period 1 July 2006 through 13 February 2007;
   
      b. it would be appropriate to also grant the applicant relief in the form of promotion reconsideration to COL by an SSB under the criteria for the 2007 LTC – COL APL DA Mandatory Selection Board and all subsequent boards for which he was considered but not selected for COL; and 
   
   c.  if selected by that board, pay him all due back pay and allowances as a result of this correction. 

10.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and does not fall under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6.  The Board operates under provisions of law and decides it cases based on evidence that is presented by the applicant.  As such, there is no effective relief that the Board can provide into the disappearance of the allegedly signed OER which was never filed in iPERMS.  If the applicant wishes to continue to pursue the disappearance of this report, he is advised to seek relief through ARNG channels, which is authorized to conduct investigation under Army Regulation 15-6. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ____X __  ____X___  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 partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

     a.  removing the contested report covering the rated period 1 July 2006 through 14 February 2007 from his records and replacing it with the revised report signed by BG DN for the period 1 July 2006 through 13 February 2007;

     b.  submitting the applicant’s records to a duly constituted SSB for reconsideration for promotion to COL under the FY07 criteria and all subsequent  COL promotion selection boards which he was considered but not promoted; 
     c.   if selected for promotion, his records be further corrected by promoting him to COL based on his assigned promotion sequence number with the appropriate date of rank, and with all due back pay and allowances, or by assigning him the appropriate promotion sequence number for future promotion purposes; and

      d.  if not selected, the applicant be so notified.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to performing an investigation under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6. 




      __________X______________
                 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)                                         AR20110024374





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110024374



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1