-
		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019567 


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:

* his name be placed back on the Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Centralized Selection List (CSL)
* future consideration for CSM selection/competition 

2.  The applicant states:
 
	a.  He was selected by the FY15 CSM CSL, but he had prior derogatory information for damage to private property.  He was flagged and subjected to a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) to remain on the CSM CSL or to be removed.  He was removed from the list.  He submitted 18 character letters on his behalf as well as his own rebuttal letter regarding the derogatory data.  

	b.  After reviewing the DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action), he saw it pertained to the other Soldier involved.  The disposition stated he (the applicant) was being reduced in grade and pending a chapter.  He believes the STAB ruled against him remaining on the CSM CSL because of the disposition statement.  He believes they looked at the information and would not retain him to be a CSM if he was being chaptered and reduced in grade.  He has submitted an appeal to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command to have the information on the DA Form 4833 changed.   



3.  The applicant provides:

* a form titled Privacy Act Request to Change Record, dated 17 October 2014
* a copy of his military identification card
* two DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)), dated 29 April and 30 July 2014
* three memoranda, dated between 30 April and15 July 2014
* 19 letters of support addressed to the STAB, dated between 2 and 14 May 2014
* two DA Forms 4833, dated 29 October 2001 and 11 April 2012 
* DA Form 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the rated period from September 2000 through April 2001
* five DA Forms 2166-8 (NCOER) covering the rated periods from May 2001 through March 2002 and from 20 June 2009 through 24 June 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was serving in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 and he was assigned to the U.S. Army Garrison (USAG), Fort Campbell, KY.  He held military occupational specialty 31B (Military Police (MP)).

2.  In a memorandum, dated 30 April 2014, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) notified the Commander, USAG, Fort Campbell, that:

	a.  The applicant was recommended for selection to CSM by the FY15 CSM CSL Board which convened on 3 December 2013.  During the post board screening conducted by the U.S. Army Senior Enlisted Review Board (USASERB), derogatory information was discovered in his history files and he was subsequently referred to a STAB.

	b.  The STAB would make a recommendation to the Director of Military Personnel Management (DMPM) whether he should be retained or removed from the CSM CSL Promotion List.  He would remain in a flagged status until a final decision was rendered.  He had until 29 May 2014 to submit a rebuttal on his own behalf to HRC.

	c.  The applicant subsequently acknowledged receipt of the 30 April 2014 memorandum.

3.  In a rebuttal memorandum to HRC, dated 2 May 2014, the applicant stated he took full responsibility for his actions connected to the two separate derogatory incidents.  He further stated, in part:

	a.  In 2001, he and his ex-wife were having domestic issues and during one of the arguments she hid his guns from him.  He notified the MP station, a patrol was sent to search his quarters, and they found his locked briefcase with his weapons and variations of ammunition under his son's bed.  Two parts of the ammunition were government issued; there were two boxes with 100 9mm rounds and one M-16 magazine with 30 5.56mm rounds.  He came into possession of the ammunition while assigned to the Fort Knox MP Company and did not realize it was still in the ammunition pouch until he moved and discovered it 2 to 3 years later.  He secured it with his own weapons because he was no longer in the MP Company.  He was submitted for a field-grade Article 15 but both charges were dropped because the statue of limitations had passed and he had properly secured the ammunition. 

	b.  In 2011, at Fort Stewart, GA, he witnessed a Soldier driving erratically, weaving in and out of traffic, and blatantly disregarding the laws of the road.  His boss, Lieutenant Colonel BK was with him in the vehicle.  He pulled alongside the Soldier and asked if he needed help and he responded rudely.  Later when traffic was stopped, he went to the Soldier's car and knocked on his window; however, he refused to roll down his window.  As the Soldier started to drive off, he (the applicant) attempted to hit his car with his hand to get his attention but he missed the trunk and hit the rear window which shattered on impact.  He was not proud of his actions; but he did what he thought was right at the time which was not bypassing a Soldier who needed on-the-spot correction.   

4.  In a memorandum, dated 15 July 2014, HRC notified the applicant that the STAB recommended, and DMPM approved, that his name be removed from the CSM CSL and that in accordance with Army Regulation 614-200 (Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management), paragraph 7-20, Soldiers removed from the select list would not be considered again.

5.  In the processing of this case, on 10 December 2014, an advisory opinion was received from the Chief, Promotions Branch, HRC.  The advisory official recommended denial of the applicant's request and opined:

a.  Records indicate the applicant was properly screened and removed from the FY15 CSM CSL in accordance with Army Regulation 614-200, paragraph 
7-20, and Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 1 June 2010.

	b.  On 8 April 2014, the USASERB screened his records and approved them to go before a STAB.  His record was properly construed by the STAB panel, the panel recommended he be removed for the CSM CSL, and the removal was approved by the DMPM.  The DMPM's decision is final unless the removal was shown to be in contradiction with regulatory guidance. 

6.  On 18 December 2014, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal; however, no response was received.

7.  Army Regulation 614-200, paragraph 7-20 (Personnel Suitability Screening) states Soldiers selected for initial appointment to CSM are subject to the Army's Enlisted Post Selection Suitability and Screening Review Board.  Solders found to have possible disqualifying derogatory information as a result of this screening will be afforded an avenue to rebut the findings via a STAB.  Solders found unsuitable for appointment to CSM by the STAB will not be released for such appointment or assignment/utilization as a CSM.  Soldiers will not be appointed to CSM by HRC without written release issued by DMPM following the post-board screening by the USASERB.  This does not preclude consideration by subsequent CSL boards.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms the applicant was selected by the FY15 CSM CSL.  In compliance with governing regulations his records were screened by the USASERB, derogatory information was found, and he was referred to a STAB.

2.  He was properly notified of the derogatory information, was given the opportunity to rebut the information and submit statements on his behalf, and he did so.  The STAB subsequently considered his records, the derogatory information, and his rebuttal, and recommended he be removed from the CSM CSL.  The DMPM approved the removal and his name was removed from the CSM CSL accordingly.  He was afforded due process and there is no evidence of an injustice or an error.

3.  With respect to his request for future consideration concerning the CSM CSL, this request is premature.  The Board cannot rule on an event that has not yet occurred.

4.  In view of the foregoing, he is not entitled to the requested relief.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____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.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20140019567



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019567



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1