Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) Rebuttals

 

What is a Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

A Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) is a board convened after an officer has been selected for promotion to “review” that selection based on the discovery of “adverse information” pertaining to the officer selected for promotion.  Specifically, for officers up to O-8, if it is discovered that they are “the subject of credible information of an adverse nature, including any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion (including any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an officially documented investigation or inquiry), that was not furnished to the promotion board during its consideration of the office for promotion,” a Special Selection Review Board to will review the officer’s selection and recommend whether the selection for promotion of the officer should be sustained.

What is the Purpose of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

The purpose of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) is to ensure that no officer is promoted where there is cause to believe that they unqualified to perform the duties of the higher grade and to guarantee that officers promoted in the U.S. Army demonstrate the required “exemplary conduct” essential of commanders and those in authority.  “Exemplary conduct” of is required by Army officers: 1) to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; 2) to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command; 3) to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Army, all persons who are guilty of them; and 4)  to take all necessary and proper measures, under the laws, regulations, and customs of the Army, to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge.

What is an Army Promotion Review Board (PRB)?

The Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) was a board established by Army Regulation review promotion lists to ensure that no officer is promoted where there is cause to believe that they are mentally, physically, morally, or professionally unqualified to perform the duties of the higher grade.  A case was referred to the Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29, paragraph 7-2, based on any of the following: 1) a referred evaluation report; 2) punishment under UCMJ, Art. 15 (whether filed in the restricted or performance file of the AMHRR); 3) any court-martial conviction; 4) a memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) placed in the AMHRR; 5) adverse documentation filed in the AMHRR; 6) initiation of elimination action under the provisions of AR 600–8–24; 7) failure to make satisfactory progress in the Army Body Composition Program in accordance with AR 600–9; and 8) other adverse information received by HQDA but not filed in the AMHRR, if the referral authority finds that the information is substantiated, relevant, and might reasonably and materially affect a promotion recommendation.  The Army Promotion Review Board has been all but replaced by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).

 

 

What is the Difference Between the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) and the Promotion Review Board (PRB)?

The Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) has been replaced by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) to review officer promotions in the military.  The Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) only applied to members of the U.S. Army but considered virtually the same materials as the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) including a review of information in official files maintained by U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (including the U.S. Army Crime Records Center), Department of the Inspector General, the restricted portion of the AMHRR, and a query for suspension of favorable personnel actions (Flag).  The Army Regulation governing Promotion Review Boards (PRBs) was updated on 9 September 2020 and incorporated stricter screening requirement by the PRB (including access to restricted portions of the AMHRR) which closely resembles the strict screening requirements of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).  This is especially true given the implementation of the Army’s AAIP program by Army Directive in February 2023, creating a database of all substantiated AR 15-6 investigations which is provided to Army Promotion Boards.  The main difference between the two boards is that the SSRB seems to act quicker than the PRB which is usually convened within 120 days after a case is referred to a PRB.

What Regulation or Instruction Governs the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

Despite language in the Federal Law indicating that the service components will implement regulations governing Special Selection Review Boards, as of May 23, 2023, the U.S. Army has failed to do so.  The law governing the Special Selection Review Boards is found in 10 U.S. Code § 14502a, which outlines the general duties and procedures of the SSRB.

What is the Composition of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

The Federal Law creating the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) indicated that they would be convened in the same manner as Special Selection Boards (SRBs) pursuant to 10 U.S. Code § 14502.  The Special Selection Boards appointment and composition is governed by 10 U.S. Code § 14102.  Therefore, the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) is appointed by the Secretary of the military department concerned. The SSRB shall consist of five or more officers.  All of the officers of any such SSRB shall be of the same armed force as the officers under consideration by the board.  Each member of a SSRB must hold a permanent grade higher than the grade of the officers under consideration by the board, and no member of a board may hold a grade below major or lieutenant commander. The members of a SSRB shall represent the diverse population of the armed force concerned to the extent practicable.

Not surprisingly, the Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) had similar requirements for the composition of the board.  Chapter 7, paragraph 7-5 of AR 600-8-29 (9 September 2020) provided that “PRBs will be composed of an odd number of at least five officers on the active-duty list (ADL) serving in a higher grade than those officers being considered. At least one member must be representative of the considered officer’s competitive category. When other than Regular Army (OTRA) officers are considered, there will be at least one OTRA member on the board. The senior board member will be designated the board president.”  Again, one is hard pressed to find the meaningful distinctions between the Army Promotion Review Board (PRB) and the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).

 

 

What Information is Considered by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

In reviewing an officer and recommending whether the selection for promotion of the officer should be sustained, a Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) shall be furnished and consider the following: 1) the record and information concerning the officer furnished to the promotion board that recommended the officer for promotion; 2) any credible information of an adverse nature on the officer, including any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an officially documented investigation or inquiry (AAIP Program).  While not listed specifically, this would include any adverse information contained in the AMHRR, including the restricted file.  Typically, this would include GOMORs, NJP, BOI Findings, U.S. Army CRC Law Enforcement Reports, referred and poor evaluations, and adverse investigations findings (DAIG, AR 15-6).

What is Considered “Adverse Information” by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

Although not defined in the actual Federal Law creating the Special Selection Review Board, DoD Instruction 1320.04 defines adverse information as “any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an officially documented investigation or inquiry or any other credible information of an adverse nature. To be credible, the information must be resolved and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. To be adverse, the information must be derogatory, unfavorable, or of a nature that reflects clearly unacceptable conduct, integrity, or judgment on the part of the individual.”

What Rights Does a Service Member have Regarding the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

Notice of Adverse Information and Right to Comment.  Before adverse information relating to an officer is furnished to a Special Selection Review Board (SSRB), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall ensure that: 1) such adverse information is made available to the officer; and 2) the officer is afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit comments on such adverse information to the Special Selection Review Board before its review of the officer and the recommendation for promotion of the officer.

Summaries of Classified Information.  If adverse information on an officer is not made available to the officer as otherwise required due to the classification status of such information, the officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be furnished a summary of such adverse information appropriate to the officer’s authorization for access to classified information.

Limitations on Submitting Comments.  An opportunity to submit comments on adverse information is not required for an officer if: 1) such adverse information was made available to the officer when it was first provided to the promotion board recommending the promotion of the officer; and 2) the officer submitted comments on such adverse information to that promotion board.  If the officer submits comments, they shall be furnished to the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).  The officer has the right to waive submitting comments to the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).

What Information Should a Service Member Include when Submitting a Rebuttal to Adverse Information Provided to the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

When submitting a rebuttal to adverse information provided to the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) to justify staying on the promotion list as an officer, it’s crucial to provide a well-structured and compelling response. There are no guidelines as to what is permitted in the officer’s response to the notice of review of adverse information by the SSRB.  However, 10 U.S.C. § 14106 provides that an officer eligible for consideration by a promotion board who is in the promotion zone or above the promotion zone, may send a written communication to the board calling attention to any matter concerning the officer which the officer considers important to the officer’s case.  As such, here’s a list of information that could be included in an officer’s written communication:

 

 

Address the Adverse Information.  Clearly identify and address the specific adverse information that has been presented to the SSRB. Ensure that there is a thorough understanding of the allegations or negative feedback against the officer.  It is important that one refutes the allegations contained in the adverse information and provides evidence to the contrary.  If the information is from “titling” of an offense by CID or from the U.S. Army Crime Records Center (CRC), be sure to get a copy of the actual CID Law Enforcement Report to address the adverse information.  This can be done through a FIOA request to the U.S. Army CRC.

Assess the Accuracy and Context of the Adverse Information.  Evaluate the accuracy and context of the adverse information. If there are any inaccuracies or misunderstandings, gaps in logic, internal contradictions, or inconsistencies, provide detailed evidence to refute them. Offer a balanced perspective that provides context for the situation or events in question.

Develop Rebuttal Arguments.  Develop rebuttal arguments logically and coherently. Present a well-structured response that addresses each allegation or negative feedback individually. Use facts, evidence, and objective data to support the rebuttal. Include any relevant documentation, such as performance evaluations, commendations, or testimonials and witness statements that counter the adverse information.  If one has not previously provided a statement regarding the underlying misconduct serving as the basis for the adverse information, be prepared to provide a statement.

Provide Explanations and Mitigating Factors.  Provide clear and concise explanations for any incidents or events that have been raised as adverse information. If there were extenuating circumstances or mitigating factors that contributed to the situation, explain them in detail. Demonstrate how these factors do not reflect your overall performance or potential for advancement and promotion in the Army.

Relate Any Extraordinary Circumstances.  Explain any exceptional circumstances that may have affected your performance during the evaluation period. These circumstances could include personal hardships, health issues, family emergencies, or other factors that impacted the ability to perform at one’s full potential. Provide any relevant supporting documentation, such as medical records or official statements, to substantiate your claims.

Demonstrate Personal Growth and Improvement.  Emphasize any steps taken to address the concerns raised or to improve in the areas highlighted by the adverse information. Discuss specific training, courses, or initiatives that have been undertaken to enhance one’s skills and knowledge. Provide examples of positive changes or improvements in one’s performance.

Emphasize Leadership and Professionalism.  Highlight demonstrated leadership qualities, professionalism, and dedication to one’s duties. Provide examples of successful projects, teamwork, and positive interactions with colleagues and subordinates. Showcase instances where one has demonstrated strong leadership abilities and made a positive impact on the unit or organization.

Emphasize Positive Performance Evaluations.  Highlight accomplishments, achievements, and contributions during the evaluation periods. Provide specific examples of outstanding performance, leadership, and noteworthy achievements. Include any awards, commendations, or letters of appreciation received during the period when conduct underlying the adverse information occurred.

Provide Recommendations.  Include recommendations and endorsements from superiors, colleagues, subordinates, or other relevant individuals who can attest to one’s character, competence, and potential for promotion. These recommendations should address the specific concerns raised by the adverse information and highlight one’s overall capabilities.

Explain Future Commitments.  Express one’s commitment to continuous improvement and growth. Discuss one’s future plans and goals for professional development, emphasizing how one intend to address any identified areas of weakness or concern.

The military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon can assist the officer to ensure that the rebuttal is well-written, concise, and coherent.  We can help develop the best plan to attack the adverse information and compile relevant evidence to demonstrate the flaws in the adverse information.  The military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon will help the officer to present a compelling, persuasive and logical case that effectively addresses the adverse information and showcases all the qualifications for promotion for the officer.  Call the Law Office of Will M. Helixon today for a consultation regarding notice of review of adverse information by a Selective Service Review Board and the best course of action to pursue.

What are the Procedure Utilized by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

Records and Adverse Information is Compared to Promoted and Non-Promoted Sample.  In considering the record and adverse information pertaining to an officer, the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) shall compare such record and adverse information with an appropriate sampling of the records of those officers of the same competitive category who were recommended for promotion by the promotion board that recommended the officer for promotion, and an appropriate sampling of the records of those officers who were considered by and not recommended for promotion by that promotion board.

Disclosure of Reviewed Officer Avoided.  The records and adverse information shall be presented to a Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) in a manner that does not indicate or disclose the person or persons for whom the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) was convened.  It begs the question that if one submits matters to the SSRB, how can such a response be included for consideration by the SSRB, and it be presented in a manner that does not disclose the identity of the officer for whom the SSRB was convened.

SSRB Applies Original Promotion Board Standards.  In considering whether the recommendation for promotion of an officer should be sustained, the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) shall, to the greatest extent practicable, apply the standards used by the promotion board that recommended the officer for promotion.

Procedure to Sustain a Promotion by the SSRB.  The recommendation for promotion of an officer may be sustained only if the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) determines that the person: 1) ranks on an order of merit created by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) as better qualified for promotion than the sample officer highest on the order of merit list who was considered by and not recommended for promotion by the promotion board concerned; and 2) is comparable in qualification for promotion to those sample officers who were recommended for promotion by that promotion board.  A recommendation for promotion of an officer may be sustained only by a vote of a majority of the members of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB).  If the SSRB does not sustain a recommendation for promotion of an officer, they shall be considered to have failed of selection for promotion.

 

 

Can a Service Member Appeal the Decision of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) to the Board of Correction for Military Records (BCMR)?

Yes, the officer Service Member can appeal the decision of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) to their appropriate service component Board of Correction for Military Records.  The BCMR has broad powers to reverse the findings of the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB) relating to removal of the officer Service Member from the promotion list.  The Army BCMR’s jurisdiction under 10 USC 1552 extends to any military record of the Department of the Army.

What can the Law Office of Will M. Helixon do to Assist an Officer Soldier Facing Review by the Special Selection Review Board (SSRB)?

Based on our years of experience assisting officers with responding to adverse information, the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon can advise the officer facing a Special Selection Review Board in developing a specific strategy to deal with the review of adverse information by the board.  This specific strategy would include how to best and most effectively address the adverse information before the SSRB, including developing a response and demonstrating why the officer is deserving of the promotion for which they were selected by the promotion board.  The military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon can build the Soldier’s response to the board by compiling the evidence they need to put their best foot forward to justify keeping the officer on the promotion list.  Since time is of the essence, and one must quickly and efficiently, it is important to contact a military lawyer at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to discuss the best course of action respond to the SSRB and keep the officer’s promotion selection.  Call us today and let’s start working on your SSRB response.

More about the Law Office of Will M. Helixon.

Will M. Helixon established the Law Office of Will M. Helixon in February of 2016.  Originally headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, the firm’s original mission was to defend members of the military in courts-martial, adverse administrative proceedings and other criminal proceedings. Today, the firm has worked as military lawyers in multiple complex and high-profile military cases.  The firm now handles most military matters, including medical issues involving the MEB/PEB process, adverse administrative matters, military justice matters including Nonjudicial Punishment, Administrative Separation Boards, and Boards of Inquiry, and legal assistance matters, including rebutting GOMORs and the correction of military records.  No longer in Kansas City, the firm now has a European office physically located in Vilseck, Germany and in Wiesbaden, Germany.  Call us today to assist with your legal issue in Germany or the United States.  All military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon maintain licenses to practice before all military trial courts.