BOARD DATE:	  28 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130020582 


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 reversal of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) decision to place him on the Retired List in the rank of major (MAJ).

2.  The applicant states the AGDRB unjustly placed him on the Retired List in the rank of MAJ due to one, non-severe incident of misconduct in the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 in an otherwise exemplary career before and after the incident, for which there existed several mitigating circumstances.  He also alleges that the AGDRB is in violation of Army Regulation 15-80 (AGDRB and Grade Determinations), paragraph 2-4f in that the board provided him with more punishment because the board members believed he was not punished enough. He received administrative action and medical treatment for the incident.  Since the incident, his performance has been exemplary, as noted by the first General Officer in his chain of command.  Additionally, he was in charge of 5 LTCs and 2 MAJs.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement, dated 19 October 2013
* 7 memoranda of support
* 4 DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER))
* memorandum for record, dated 5 June 2013



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having previous enlisted service, his record indicates he was appointed as a commissioned officer on or around 28 May 1994.  He is currently serving in the Regular Army and was promoted to LTC, on 1 February 2011.

2.  His record contains a referred OER for the rating period 17 November 2013 through 14 March 2013 which shows in:

	a.  Part IV (Performance Evaluation- Professionalism), a (Army Values), his Rater marked "NO" for the Army Value "Duty."

	b.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), his rater marked the block "Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote" and stated "[Applicant] is a technically competent officer who has performed the vast majority of his duties as the Division Equal Opportunity Program Manager in a meticulous and dutiful manner.  Unfortunately, [Applicant] had a very serious lapse in judgment when he was significantly under the influence of alcohol during the course of his duties, on a normal duty day."  “Due to [Applicant's] serious lapse in judgment, he does not possess the potential for promotion."

	c.  Part VII (Senior Rater) his Senior Rater checked the blocks "Do Not Promote," "Center of Mass," and stated, "[Applicant] has performed the majority of his duties in a superb manner.  However, in the course of those duties, [Applicant] was found to be significantly under the influence of alcohol during one duty day.  In light of this event and its demonstrated inconsistency with professionalism and Army values, [Applicant] does not have the potential for promotion."

3.  His records contain a memorandum in response to his referred OER, dated 
5 June 2013, wherein he stated:

	a.  He had no excuse for his extremely poor judgment.  He diminished the integrity of the Equal Opportunity (EO) and sexual harassment/assault response and prevention (SHARP) office at Fort Carson; he tarnished the reputation and high standards of the 4th Infantry Division Staff and the Officer Corps; he betrayed the trust of the commanders, leaders, and subordinates in the 4th Infantry Division; he deceived, humiliated and disgraced his wife and daughter; he ruined and caused the termination of his 19-year marriage; and, despite a once very successful career, he will always be remembered as "that LTC" who behaved like a thoughtless idiot.  He has also triggered his request to retire from the Army at least 12 months earlier than he had anticipated, curtailing his military service under a cloud of revulsion.
	b.  He was diagnosed and treated for substance dependence and major depression over the course of the 11 weeks following this incident.  He has battled alcoholism and depression for at least 10 years.  Factors contributing to his condition included a significantly and progressively deteriorating relationship with his spouse; taking the duty of the EO and SHARP program manager far too personally; being overly critical of real or fancied failures in his personal and professional life; a low self-esteem; a lack of confidence and self-worth; suicidal ideation; being a victim of sexual assault as a private first class (PFC)/E-3; and sustaining a deceptive and destructive coping mechanism-abusing and overusing alcohol-to remove his pain, shame and feelings of hopelessness.  During the 
11 weeks of treatment, he developed positive coping skills (diet, routine exercise, prayer, meditation, talking with a buddy/Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, and abstaining from chewing tobacco) along with the use of reinforcing medications and support groups (Welbutrin, AA, Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), group therapy) to change the way he thinks and behaves when it comes to alcohol, health, relationships, communication, stress, and crisis.  He can honestly say he is a different person emotionally and spiritually.

	c.  Between now and his requested retirement date (1 July 2014) he was seeking to make up for his behavior.  He was working as a senior staff officer for his division's joint operations center at Fort Carson while the division headquarters was deployed.  He has also volunteered to conduct a Leader/Soldier/Family development venue at Fort Carson that addresses the nature of the Soldier-Alcoholic and the impact he/she has on his/her section, unit, subordinates, colleagues, chain of command, family, career, and future.  He thought that if others may be able to live vicariously through his experience and negligence he may be able to help others like himself before they make a fatal error he made.  He thought he might also be able to help others notice the signs of a fellow Soldier who may be abusing alcohol or other substances so that he/she may get help before something bad happens.

4.  His record contains a memorandum issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), on 22 August 2013, wherein HRC stated the applicant had requested voluntary retirement effective 30 June 2014.  HRC requested the AGDRB review the applicant's file to determine the highest grade he served satisfactorily for retirement.  

5.  He provided a memorandum to the AGDRB, dated 29 September 2013, wherein he requested that the AGDRB favorably find his entire service as an LTC before and after his incident on 12 February 2013 (under the influence of alcohol during the duty day) as satisfactory and recommend to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) (DASA (RB)) that he retire in the grade of LTC.  Since the incident, and after his medical treatment for substance dependence and major depression, he was assigned as the senior Plans Officer for the Division's rear detachment element, supervising four LTCs, two MAJs, and one civilian.  He was also assigned to serve as the Operational Plans team leader for Fort Carson for the Brigade Combat Team Reorganization and Force Redesign.  In this capacity, he has been granted the responsibility and authority of a senior LTC by the nearly identical leaders who processed his referred report and locally filed his memorandum of reprimand.  

6.  His record contains a memorandum from the DASA (RB), dated 9 October 2013, directing he be placed on the Retired List as a MAJ if his retirement request was approved.  

7.  He provided a self-authored statement, dated 19 October 2013, wherein he stated he believes the AGDRB unjustly determined that he was to be placed on the Retired List as a MAJ for one, non-severe adverse incident in an otherwise exemplary military record, both before and after a singular incident of misconduct while in duress.

	a.  At the time of the incident, his chain of command recognized his overall performance and commitment to the Army; rather than take any punitive action, his chain of command recognized this singular incident as highly uncharacteristic of him and his duty ethic.  They recognized that he was in a state of extreme duress.  He received administrative action in the form of a Change of Duty OER (referred report) and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), which was locally filed.  He self-referred into the Army's Substance Dependence Treatment Program at Fort Belvoir, VA for alcohol dependence and major depression.  While at Fort Belvoir, he successfully completed intensive inpatient and outpatient therapies for alcoholism, major depression, and past traumas which, in combination, triggered his poor behavior.

	b.  Upon return from medical treatment, on 10 May 2013, he was assigned as the senior LTC in the Plans Office for the 4th Infantry Division staff, Fort Carson, CO.  In this capacity, he was in charge of five LTCs, two MAJs, and one civilian employee.  Among other duties as the Division Plans Officer, he led the installation planning effort for the brigade redesign and coordinated between his division and external division staffs to execute a successful force redesign for the Army.  He received several accolades from his supervisors and the Acting Senior Commander, Brigadier General (BG) MAB, for his competence and continued commitment.  On 30 June 2014, he will have completed approximately 41 months of active duty service as an LTC.  

	c.  With the exception of his referred OER, his record contains no other derogatory or adverse information.  He was not reverted to a lower grade.  He did not receive punitive action.  He was not subject to a court-martial or nonjudicial punishment.  He was not forced to retire in lieu of any elimination action.

	d.  He would like the ABCMR to understand that his conduct and his decision to be intoxicated on duty, while entirely improper, was the result of irrational thought and included several extenuating/mitigating circumstances which were either overlooked or not given due consideration.  

		(1)  He was a victim of sexual assault as a PFC/E-3.  In February 1989, at 19 years old, he was sexually assaulted by a male while stationed with A Company, 71st Engineer Battalion, 5th Infantry Division, Fort Polk, LA.  Over the course of his duty as the SHARP Program Manager, he re-lived this experience several times.  The stress associated with this assault became overwhelming, in part, because it was the 24th anniversary of the assault in the month of February. He felt shame, regret, guilt and embarrassment.  He did not report this assault nor did he publicize it; he felt it would give the perception that his duty performance would be biased and reduce the effectiveness of the Division's SHARP program.  While in treatment at Fort Belvoir, he did properly and fully process this trauma during therapy with the outpatient behavioral health professionals.  Doctor (Dr) TT, the Clinical Psychologist who is a certified trauma professional, helped him successfully process this trauma while in treatment at the Co-Occurring Outpatient Center at Fort Belvoir in April 2013.

		(2)  At this same time, January-February 2013, his 19-year relationship with his spouse was deteriorating and moving toward separation and divorce.  He failed to cope appropriately with this situation.  He and his wife are now in the process of dissolving the marriage.  His inability to resolve his marital differences and conflict made him feel like a failure as a husband and father, especially with respect to his daughter's perception of him.

		(3)  He had been taking his duty and role as the SHARP Program Manager too personally.  He felt like a failure as a victim advocate professional for not being able to prevent or eliminate sexual harassment and assaults at Fort Carson.  He truly believed he could generate a climate that would stop people from sexually harming other people.  Again, he was not thinking rationally.

		(4)  During this time, he was suffering from major depression and he was contemplating suicide.  In this state, he lacked the necessary clarity of thought and made a very poor decision.

		(5)  His performance as an LTC, both before and after the incident and treatment, has been exemplary.  His OERs and letters of endorsement articulate this.  His current position, being selected to lead seven field grade officers even after his incident, demonstrates the trust and confidence that his chain of command has in his abilities, competence, and character as a senior LTC.

		(6)  Since his incident and treatment, he has mentored several noncommissioned officers and two officers while attending therapy for alcohol dependence and during off duty hours.  He has shared his story with them, his experience, strength, and hope-in an effort to assist them before they make errors that are grave or detrimental to their family, careers, and future.  He has received no special action or incentive with regard to this, other than helping another Soldier who is in need of support.

8.  He provided an OER for the rating period 8 March 2010 through 7 March 2011 which shows his Rater marked the block "Outstanding Performance, Promote" and his Senior Rater marked the blocks "Best Qualified" and "Center of Mass."

9.  He provided an OER for the rating period 8 March 2011 through 16 November 2011 which shows his Rater marked the block "Outstanding Performance, Promote" and his Senior Rater marked the blocks "Best Qualified" and "Above Center of Mass."

10.  He provided an OER for the rating period 17 November 2011 through 
16 November 2012 which shows his Rater marked the block "Outstanding Performance, Promote" and his Senior Rater marked the blocks "Best Qualified" and "Center of Mass."

11.  He provided an OER for the rating period 8 March 2010 through 7 March 2011 which shows his Rater marked the block "Outstanding Performance, Promote" and his Senior Rater marked the blocks "Best Qualified" and "Center of Mass."

12.  He provided statements in his behalf, from Mr. WEW, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO, Director, Mission Support Element, dated 
5 September 2013, and from Mr. JRR of the G3/5//7, which essentially stated that these individuals fully endorse the applicant and recommended his service as an LTC be found satisfactory.  

	a.  Mr. WEW stated that as the Fort Carson Mission Support Director, he has observed the applicant's performance daily when the division headquarters was on the installation.  

	b.  Both Mr. WEW and Mr. JRR indicated that the applicant demonstrated a critical error in judgment by being intoxicated during the duty day in February 2013; however, this one incident should not preclude the Army from recognizing his commendable and exemplary 24 months of service as an LTC before this incident, as well as the recent months of positive duty performance and leadership as an LTC following his successful medical treatment.  Mr. WEW stated that he did and continues to perform satisfactorily as an LTC in the Army.

13.  He provided a statement in his behalf, from BG MAB, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO, Acting Senior Commander, dated 
28 September 2013, wherein BG MAB stated he fully endorses the applicant's request and recommends the Board and the DASA (RB) find his service as an LTC as satisfactory.  The applicant demonstrated poor judgment on February 2013, a single point of failure in this officer's career.  However, BG MAB has observed the applicant in the last 5 months and his performance has been very positive.  He has worked on several division projects, one being the reorganization, an exceptional staff assessment led by the applicant.  The incident has not gotten in the way of his duty performance.  He does understand his mistake and will continue to maintain the work ethic BG MAB has observed until he retires.  The applicant has demonstrated competence and character since the incident.  BG MAB recommended that the applicant be retained for retirement as an LTC.

14.  He provided a statement from Mr. AD, Chief of Addiction Medicine, Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, VA, dated 9 October 2013, wherein Mr. AD stated the applicant was diagnosed with alcoholism and major depression.  During the inpatient portion of his treatment, he demonstrated a genuine desire to establish and maintain a program of recovery for his alcoholism and identify methods to manage his depression.  He actively participated in all therapy sessions and developed skills and habits (healthy eating, exercise, meditation, friendships) that are now enabling him to live a full and productive life.  Observations of the applicant also showed that he was active in peer-to-peer engagement, assisting fellow patients when able.  He clearly demonstrated his resolve to maintain a sober and healthy lifestyle.  The applicant successfully addressed and processed the traumas associated with his alcoholism and depression.  One portion of the program includes family involvement in the recovery process.  Attempts to contact his spouse were made by the applicant's clinician; however, no response was received from the spouse.  At the time, it was known that his spouse planned on filing paperwork for a legal separation.

15.  He provided a statement from LTC CW, Chief of Behavioral Health, Fort Carson Behavioral Health Clinic, Fort Carson, CO, dated 21 October 2013, wherein LTC CW, a board certified psychiatrist, stated the applicant is his patient. LTC CW evaluated the applicant on the day of the incident and began actively treating him after he returned from inpatient treatment/medical observation/treatment for alcohol dependence and major depression.  The applicant has regularly scheduled sessions with LTC CW each month.  Like most who are afflicted with alcohol dependence, the applicant hid his condition and tried to manage on his own.  When the level of drinking came to light, the first and foremost emotion that the applicant expressed was shame.  He has used this devastating emotion to actively engage in therapy.  

	a.  From February to May 2013, the applicant received inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment at the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital for major depression, alcohol dependence, and trauma.  Through the course of his treatment, the applicant processed trauma for being a victim of sexual assault, marital and family conflict, work-related trauma, and suicide ideation.  The applicant's shame 
and guilt from these internal and external conflicts was manifested in his abuse of alcohol and were primary contributors to his major depression, as such his judgment being temporarily suspended due to the combination of untreated trauma and depression coupled with alcohol use.

	b.  After his return to Fort Carson, in May 2013, the applicant's engaged in therapy and his productivity at work improved greatly.  He is demonstrating positive recovery from his alcoholism, sexual assault, and marital and family conflict.  His level of insight and movement forward in this recovery gives him an excellent prognosis.  He has made so much progress that the majority of his medications have been tapered off successfully and will likely be discontinued early next year.  This incident has greatly affected the applicant and has curtailed an otherwise excellent career; however, one incident rarely defines a person.  This case should be no different.

16.  He provided a statement in his behalf, from LTC MEE, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO, Chief of Staff, dated 25 October 2013, wherein LTC MEE stated that on 12 February 2013 the applicant was found to be intoxicated during the duty day and that he was present for and personally witnessed the incident.  LTC MEE immediately recognized that this behavior was very uncharacteristic of the applicant and that he was not thinking or acting rationally.  The applicant was neither violent nor boisterous.  He did not make a spectacle of himself.  He was markedly depressed and distant.  He was clearly being impacted by personal and professional events that culminated in his irrational behavior.  While other choices were available to him, the combination of his personal issues and medical ailments created a perfect storm that concluded in a wrong and abnormal decision while under a period of great duress.

	a.  Prior to this incident, the applicant's performance and record was characterized as "gifted" and "above average."  After this incident and after appropriate medical treatment for depression and associated trauma, the applicant continued to perform his duties with a high degree of competence and character, leading the Plans Office with several field grade officers under his direction.

	b.  This singular incident is not, in any way, indicative of the applicant's overall performance as an LTC.  LTC MEE has observed the applicant since assuming the role as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the 4th Infantry Division since July 2012. He was always professional, courteous, and selfless.  He went out of his way to provide support and assistance to the leadership and Soldiers at Fort 
Carson.  It was evident that in his role as the EO and SHARP Program Manager he was extremely committed to generating a climate of respect and to eliminating sexual harassment and assault.  He started both programs from scratch and created top-rated systems and plans to combat discrimination, harassment, and assault at Fort Carson.

17.  Army Regulation 15-80 states in:

	a.  Paragraph 2-4 (Grade determination considerations) a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay.  Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive.  The AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits.  Generally, determination will be based on the Soldier’s overall service in the grade in question, either on active duty or other service qualifying the Soldier for service/physical disability retirement, receipt of retired pay, or separation for physical disability.  Circumstances pertinent to whether such service is found satisfactory include, but are not limited to, the following:

		(1)  Medical reasons, which may have been a contributing or decisive factor in a reduction in grade, misconduct, or substandard performance.

		(2)  Compassionate circumstances.

		(3)  Length of time in grade (TIG).  The AGDRB cannot waive statutory TIG requirements for retirement at the current grade, such as the 3 years for LTC and above under the provision of 10 USC 1370, except as otherwise specifically authorized by law.  

		(4)  Performance level, as reflected in evaluation reports and other portions of the service record that reflect performance.  In reviewing these matters, the AGDRB will consider whether reporting officials were aware of the misconduct or performance giving rise to the grade determination.

		(5)  Nature and severity of misconduct, if any.  Although the punishment an individual has received may be one factor in determining the seriousness of misconduct, the amount of punishment will not be considered in determining whether "the individual has been punished enough."  Grade determinations are not considered punitive, and the standard for grade determinations is "highest grade satisfactorily served," not whether the individual has been sufficiently punished.

		(6)  The grade at which the misconduct was committed.

	b.  Paragraph 2–5 (Unsatisfactory service) that service in the highest grade or an intermediate grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when:

		(1)  The highest grade was a result of a terminal leave promotion (see the glossary for a definition of this term).

		(2)  Reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, was owing to misconduct, was caused by nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and/or was the result of the sentence of a court-martial.

		(3)  There is sufficient unfavorable information to establish that the Soldier’s service in the grade in question was unsatisfactory.  One specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served in grade.  However, service retirement in lieu of or as the result of elimination action will not, by itself, preclude retirement in the highest grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Army Regulation 15-80 specifically states that the AGDRB determinations will generally be based on a Soldier's overall service in the grade in question and that the circumstances pertinent to whether such service is found satisfactory include medical reasons, performance level, and the nature and severity of the misconduct.

2.  The applicant was diagnosed with major depression, suicidal ideations, and alcoholism.  His treating psychiatrist, an Army LTC, stated the applicant has suffered from suicidal ideation and major depression.  His suicidal ideation and major depression temporarily suspended his judgment due to the combination of untreated trauma and depression coupled with alcohol use.
3.  With the exception of his referred OER, all the evaluations he received as an LTC indicate he was best qualified and extremely competent.  However, even his referred OER includes statements recognizing his extreme technical competence and a "Center of Mass" rating.

4.  Prior to this incident, the applicant's performance and record was characterized as "gifted" and "above average."  After this incident and after appropriate medical treatment for depression and associated trauma, the applicant continued to perform his duties with a high degree of competence and character, leading the Plans Office with several field grade officers under his direction.  

5.  The first General officer in his chain of command stated he had personally observed the applicant to in the last 5 months and his performance has been very positive and demonstrated competence and character.  Additionally the applicant had worked on and led several high profile projects that received exceptional staff assessment.  

6.  His chain of command is in the best position to determine whether or not he has served as a LTC satisfactorily.  The chain of command is of the opinion that this one incident, which was extremely uncharacteristic behavior for the applicant, did not define him as an officer or mar his performance as an LTC to the level of unsatisfactory.  Prior to the incident his service as an LTC was more than satisfactory and after his treatment his service as an LTC continued to be extremely satisfactory.  His chain of command demonstrated confidence in his ability to serve successfully and satisfactorily as an LTC in several ways.

	a.  He did not receive punitive action.  He was not subject to a court-martial or nonjudicial punishment.  He was not forced to retire in lieu of any elimination action.

	b.  HIs chain of command filed the letter of reprimand locally vice in his performance folder.

	c.  His referred OER contains a "center of mass" rating.

	d.  His chain of command placed him in a position of leadership over several field grade officers and allowed him to lead several very high-profile projects and programs upon his return from treatment.  

7.  As a matter of clarity it must be noted that there was no error or injustice in the AGDRB's decision to place him on the retired list in the rank of MAJ.  However, it must also be noted that, with the exception of an incident that impacted one day as a single point in time in his 21 year career, he has shown himself to be a good Soldier.  The evidence of record shows and his chain of command concurs that he has served satisfactorily in the rank of LTC both before and after this unfortunate incident occurred.  Therefore, as a matter of equity, he should be placed on the retired list in the rank of LTC.

BOARD VOTE:

__x___  ____x____  ___x_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 showing he is authorized to be placed on the Retired list as an LTC.




      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20130020582





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130020582



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1