Thread by @LegalLeadTheWay

Army officers: some of you need to update your resumes (an only slightly alarmist thread…)

Due to a change in board procedures surrounding "adverse information," the hard truth is many officers who believed they were ok are at serious risk of non-selection & elimination from the service. Selection boards have always had access (1/20)

to “derogatory information,” aka General Officer Memos of Reprimand (GOMOR), Article 15s, etc when filed in your ‘permenant fiche,' aka AMHRR. Whether the board saw derog filed in your “restricted fiche” varied over the years basically as a force-shaping tool. So, (2/20)

during the surge years restricted files were masked from board. With drawdowns, as we started to get lean they’ve been opened up. Even when not open to the selection board, restricted derog (3/20) armytimes.com/news/your-army…

has long been subject to a post board suitability screening or HRC initiated show-cause (elimination). Congress evidently decided all this was insufficient after a series of Senate confirmations of officers without derogatory info, but with history of misconduct. Congress (4/20)

has tinkered with this for a few years. They created a category, “adverse information” to capture the “no bad paper, but bad behavior” doughnut hole. The definition of “adverse info” (from DoDI 1320.04) is pretty broad, but at first this (5/20).

didn’t raise eyebrows because it only applied to selection for Brigadier General & above, and who cares about those guys & gals? Anyway sources of adverse info were (6/20)

Crime Records Center (MP/CID) records and Inspector General/SHARP/EO databases. But, that doesn’t get at every “command investigation” like Congress wants. So, JAG Corps created a database, (7/20)

initially called Adverse Info Pilot Program & now called the Army Adverse Information Program (AAIP). It’s a database of all “adverse info” coming out of command investigations like those under Army Reg 15-6. Remember how the definition of “adverse” is super (8/20)

broad, but nobody cared? Nat’l Defense Auth Act of 2020 says you need to care, because now we are loading AAIP with adverse info for use at all promo boards, O3+. “When they came for the O6(P), I said nothing b/c (9/20)

I was not a O6(P), by the time they came for me there was nobody left to say anything” & all that. Anyway, putting all officer “adverse info” into that database was one big change – the next is that the Army’s “post board scrub” (10/20)

was no longer enough for Congress, who explicitly required “adverse info” be provided to promo boards “at every stage of consideration.” That means instead of post-board review of like-items (comparing officers (11/20)

with other officers with derog/adverse, deciding if behavior was so bad they should be removed from promo list) the actual promotion board will now be presented with a big flashing red “adverse info” (maybe where the DA photo used to be?). Yes, the same promo (12/20)

boards that spend an average of 2 minutes per file. What do we think board members are going to do when that pops up? Dig into the info, the rebuttal, etc? No, they’re going to vote that file a ‘1’ & move along to compare (13/20)

files of officers without derog. There’s an argument this is all good, that we’re just holding officers to a higher standard. But REMEMBER: AAIP drinks in EVERY “adverse” finding from *ANY* admin investigation. That means if (14/20)

a commander’s inquiry found that an officer made an error in judgment & every commander up to Division Commander (officer misconduct is typically withheld to that level) decided it warrants no punitive or adverse action – too bad. The officer’s career was over the (15/20)

moment the investigation was approved. There are some ways for commanders to influence this, but they are fundamentally dishonest – refusing to approve findings supported by the evidence or mental contortions to decide something doesn’t really reflect (16/20)

poorly on judgment… but integrity is an Army value, and anyway once Congress gets wind of us doing that we’ll like whatever ends up in the next NDAA even less. Maybe I am wrong about how some of this plays out. Maybe we want a mechanized application (17/20)

of zero-defects. But the bottom line is a lot of Army officers need to peer waaaaaay back into their closets, re-aquaint themselves with any skeletons that might be there… if this is you, (18/20)

go see a legal assistance attorney. They may be limited in the help they can provide, as AAIP has no published regulation & these changes are brand new, but they can help you plan the rebuttal (19/20)

for when this “adverse info” pops up in MyBoardFile. We’ve always tended towards 0 defects, now we are institutionalizing it. Obviously unclear how this will impact HRC-initiated show cause or SELCON, so greater minds than I should ponder that…

& update your resume. (fin/20)

I'd love to be wrong. @usawtfmJ1 @Helpful_S1 @DuplessisBrad or other folks with HRC/DA Sec experience, subject to being told I am exaggerating or catastrophizing.