Understanding the Suitability Review Obstacle Course

A suitability review is a formal examination triggered by adverse information that calls into question a soldier’s fitness for promotion to the next rank. It is not a punishment itself, but a procedural safeguard to ensure that only those who meet the Army’s standards of character, integrity, and performance are advanced. The process effectively pauses a promotion until the adverse information is fully adjudicated.

In my experience, the term “obstacle course” is fitting. A soldier is often flagged for promotion just as they reach the finish line. The “obstacles” are the pieces of adverse information that suddenly appear. Understanding what constitutes “adverse information” is the first critical step. According to cornerstone regulations like Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) and AR 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), this can include a wide array of issues:

• A Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG): This is the most common trigger. A FLAG, initiated via DA Form 268, effectively freezes any positive personnel actions, including promotion. It can be initiated for numerous reasons, such as a pending law enforcement investigation, an Army command investigation (AR 15-6), a pending court-martial or civilian trial, or failure to meet body composition standards.
• A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR): For both officers and senior enlisted soldiers, a GOMOR is a severe administrative censure. If filed in the soldier’s official military personnel file (OMPF), it almost guarantees a suitability review for any future promotion.
• Referred Evaluation Reports: A negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) or Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) that must be referred to the rated soldier for comment can be a significant red flag for a promotion board.
• Security Clearance Issues: The suspension or revocation of a required security clearance is a serious matter that directly impacts a soldier’s ability to perform their duties and will certainly trigger a review.
• Pending Disciplinary Actions: This includes Article 15s (Non-Judicial Punishment) or any other pending Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action.

For members of the Virginia and Maryland National Guard, the process is further governed by Title 32 of the U.S. Code and specific state-level regulations like National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200. While the principles are the same, the command structure is different. A review for a National Guard soldier will involve their state’s Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), adding another layer of complexity. The key takeaway is that any event that casts doubt on a soldier’s judgment, reliability, or character can become the basis for this career-altering review.

The High Stakes: Consequences of a Negative Finding in Virginia & Maryland

The consequences of an unfavorable suitability review are severe and extend far beyond the simple denial of promotion. A negative finding can create a domino effect, leading to mandatory separation proceedings, a bar to reenlistment, or other administrative actions that effectively end a soldier’s military career. The stakes are incredibly high, impacting not just a soldier’s professional life but their financial future and personal identity.

When I sit down with a soldier facing a review, we don’t just talk about the promotion; we talk about their entire future. The military’s “up or out” system means that stagnation is not an option. Here’s a breakdown of the potential fallout, which I have seen play out time and again:

1. Denial of Promotion and Removal from the List: This is the most immediate outcome. The soldier is formally denied the promotion they earned and their name is removed from the promotion list. For highly competitive ranks, getting back on the list in a subsequent year can be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
2. Initiation of Administrative Separation: Depending on the nature of the adverse information, failing a suitability review can be the catalyst for mandatory separation. For officers, this could mean a “show cause” board or board of inquiry. For enlisted soldiers, it could lead to a separation board under AR 635-200. The very evidence used in the suitability review becomes the foundation for the separation case.
3. Bar to Reenlistment/Continuation: A commander may issue a bar to reenlistment, preventing an enlisted soldier from continuing their service. For officers, failing to be promoted twice (a “twice-passed over” officer) often leads to mandatory retirement or separation.
4. Loss of Trust and Future Opportunities: Even if a soldier avoids separation, the stain of a failed suitability review can follow them. It can impact future assignments, schools, and the trust of their superiors. The underlying issue becomes a permanent part of their record, a hurdle they must constantly overcome.
5. Financial and Personal Impact: The loss of a promotion means the loss of increased pay, benefits, and retirement income. More profoundly, for a career soldier, being found “unsuitable” for continued service is a deeply personal blow that can affect their sense of identity and purpose.

This is why treating a suitability review as a mere administrative hurdle is a grave mistake. It is a critical juncture that demands a robust, well-documented, and strategically sound response. As an experienced Army NG promotion lawyer, I impress upon my clients that we are not just fighting for a stripe or a new rank; we are fighting for their career, their reputation, and their family’s security.

Navigating the Formal Process: From Unit Level to DASEB

The suitability review process is a multi-echeloned system involving the soldier’s chain of command, state-level authorities for National Guard members, and ultimately, high-level Department of the Army boards. Understanding the role of each entity—from the local company commander to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)—is crucial for mounting an effective response at the right time and place.

The journey of a suitability review file is methodical and governed by strict timelines. Knowing the path it will travel allows us to anticipate requirements and prepare a defense that addresses the concerns of each adjudicator along the way.

The Key Players and Their Roles:

The Soldier’s Chain of Command

This is where it all begins. A company or battalion commander is typically the one who initiates the FLAG that triggers the review. The entire chain of command, up to the first General Officer in the soldier’s command, will review the case and make a recommendation. Their input is powerful, as they are presumed to know the soldier best. A strong rebuttal must first convince the local command. For a soldier in the Virginia or Maryland National Guard, this means their state-based chain of command up to the state’s Adjutant General’s office.

State Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) (National Guard)

For National Guard soldiers, the JFHQ of their state (e.g., in Richmond, Virginia, or Baltimore, Maryland) plays a critical intermediary role. The state’s military personnel office (G1/J1) manages the packet and ensures it complies with both federal (Title 10) and state (Title 32) laws and regulations. Their recommendation carries significant weight before the file is forwarded to the national level.

Human Resources Command (HRC)

For the active-duty Army, HRC is the central hub that manages promotion lists. When a soldier on a promotion list is flagged, HRC is the agency that officially holds the promotion in abeyance and routes the file for the suitability determination.

The Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)

This is the final arbiter for most serious cases. The DASEB is a board of senior officers and NCOs at the Department of the Army level that conducts a comprehensive review of the soldier’s entire file, the adverse information, and the soldier’s rebuttal. Their decision—to retain on the promotion list or to remove—is often the final word. Presenting a polished, professional, and compelling case to the DASEB is paramount.

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)

If the outcome of the suitability review is unfavorable, the ABCMR is the highest level of administrative appeal. A soldier can petition the ABCMR to correct an “error or injustice” in their military record, which can include overturning an improper suitability review determination. This is a post-decision appeal, not part of the initial process, but it’s an important potential remedy to keep in mind.

Effectively navigating this bureaucracy requires a two-pronged approach: a compelling narrative for the chain of command that speaks to the soldier’s character and value, and a legally and procedurally flawless packet for the administrative reviewers at JFHQ and DASEB. Missing a deadline or submitting an incomplete or poorly written rebuttal at any stage can be fatal to the case.

The SRIS Promotion Suitability Defense Blueprint

Facing a suitability review can feel overwhelming. To provide clarity and an actionable framework, we’ve developed The SRIS Promotion Suitability Defense Blueprint. This is not legal advice, but a systematic guide based on years of experience to help you organize your thoughts and evidence. A thorough and well-prepared response is your most powerful tool. Use this blueprint as a checklist to ensure you are building the strongest possible case.

Building Your Defense: Proactive Legal Strategies

A successful defense against a suitability review is not passive; it is an active, strategic effort to present a compelling counter-narrative to the adverse information. This involves not just refuting allegations but also proactively demonstrating your value and commitment to the Army values. The goal is to make the reviewing authority conclude that promoting you is in the best interest of the service.

Over my career, I’ve seen that the most effective strategies are built on a foundation of truth, context, and overwhelming positive evidence. An Army NG promotion lawyer’s role is to help a soldier frame their case within the regulatory landscape that commanders and boards understand.

Core Strategic Pillars:

1. The Strategy of Context and Mitigation: In many cases, the adverse information is true. A soldier may have received an Article 15 or been involved in a civilian incident. The strategy here is not to deny the undeniable but to provide crucial context. Was this a one-time mistake in an otherwise stellar career? What were the extenuating circumstances? What has the soldier done since the incident to demonstrate rehabilitation and growth? We work to frame the incident as an aberration, not a character-defining pattern. This is accomplished through a carefully worded personal statement and evidence of post-incident good conduct.
2. The Strategy of Factual Challenge: Sometimes, the “adverse information” is based on incomplete, inaccurate, or biased investigations. Here, the strategy is a direct challenge to the facts. This requires a meticulous deconstruction of the source document, whether it’s an AR 15-6 investigation or a police report. We gather affidavits from witnesses, find inconsistencies in the evidence, and highlight procedural errors in the investigation. The goal is to create sufficient doubt about the validity of the underlying allegations, making it unjust for the board to rely on them.
3. The “Whole Soldier” Strategy: This strategy is essential in every case. A suitability review can cause a board to focus narrowly on one negative event. Our job is to zoom out and present the “whole soldier.” We compile a comprehensive portfolio of achievements: every award, every positive evaluation, every letter of appreciation, and every certificate from military schools. We supplement this with powerful letters of support from respected leaders. The message is clear: “This one incident, when viewed in the context of my entire career of dedicated service, should not be the sole determinant of my future.”
4. The Procedural and Regulatory Strategy: Military actions are governed by a labyrinth of regulations. A knowledgeable review of the case may reveal procedural errors committed by the command. Was the FLAG initiated correctly under AR 600-8-2? Was the GOMOR rebuttal processed in accordance with regulations? Were the soldier’s due process rights violated during the underlying investigation? Identifying these errors can sometimes invalidate the adverse action itself or, at a minimum, show the board that the soldier was not afforded proper fairness, which can weigh in their favor.

The choice of strategy depends entirely on the specific facts of the case. Often, a successful defense is a hybrid of all four. It is a detailed, evidence-based argument that acknowledges reality while simultaneously showcasing the soldier’s immense value and commitment, all while ensuring the command has followed its own rules.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in a Suitability Review

In high-pressure situations, it’s easy to make unforced errors. Having seen countless soldiers navigate this process, I’ve identified several common pitfalls that can significantly damage an otherwise winnable case. Avoiding these is just as important as building a strong rebuttal.

1. Missing the Rebuttal Deadline: This is the cardinal sin. The military runs on deadlines. Failing to submit your rebuttal by the suspense date is often interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt or a lack of concern for your own career. There are no excuses.
2. Submitting an Emotional or Disrespectful Rebuttal: It’s natural to feel angry or wronged. However, venting these emotions in your official rebuttal is a catastrophic mistake. A response filled with anger, excuses, or disrespect for the chain of command will only validate the idea that you lack the maturity and judgment for the next rank.
3. Failing to Provide Evidence: A personal statement alone is not enough. Simply saying “I’m a good soldier” is an empty claim. You must prove it. Every positive assertion should be backed by an exhibit: an award, an NCOER, a letter of support, or a course completion certificate.
4. Ignoring the “Why”: Don’t just address *what* happened. Address *why* the board should still have faith in you. What have you learned? How have you grown? What steps have you taken to ensure it never happens again? Boards look for self-awareness and personal growth.
5. Gathering Weak Letters of Support: A generic, one-paragraph letter saying “Soldier X is a good person” is almost useless. Strong letters come from people who know you well, can speak to specific positive attributes with examples, and ideally, have some standing in the military community.
6. Trying to Hide or Minimize the Issue: Assuming the board won’t find out or won’t care is naive. The DASEB will have your entire file. Address the adverse information head-on. Take responsibility where appropriate and provide context. Evasiveness is seen as a lack of integrity.
7. Not Seeking Experienced Counsel Early: Many soldiers wait until it’s too late or try to handle the complex process on their own. The regulations are dense and the stakes are too high. A seasoned suitability review counsel for VA and MD matters can help you avoid these mistakes, frame the narrative, and ensure your packet is as strong as it can possibly be from the very beginning.

Glossary of Key Military Legal Terms

ABCMR (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)

The highest level of administrative review for a soldier to correct errors or injustices in their military records.

AR 15-6 Investigation

A formal administrative investigation to ascertain facts and make recommendations. The findings of an AR 15-6 can often be the basis for adverse action.

DASEB (Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board)

A panel of senior military personnel that reviews cases of soldiers recommended for promotion who have adverse information in their files and makes the final decision on their suitability.

FLAG (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions)

An administrative action, codified on DA Form 268, that prevents a soldier from receiving positive actions such as promotion, awards, or attending military schools while an investigation or adverse action is pending.

GOMOR (General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand)

A formal, written reprimand from a general officer that can be filed locally or in a soldier’s permanent Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), often triggering a suitability review.

OMPF (Official Military Personnel File)

A soldier’s permanent official record containing all performance evaluations, awards, disciplinary actions, and other key career documents.

Rebuttal

The formal written statement and supporting documents a soldier submits to respond to adverse information or a proposed action, such as a GOMOR or a suitability review.

Common Scenarios & Questions

These scenarios reflect real-world situations soldiers in Virginia and Maryland frequently encounter. The details are anonymized, but the core challenges are ones I have addressed many times.

Scenario 1: The Pending Civilian DUI

“I’m a Staff Sergeant in the Virginia Army National Guard, selected for promotion to Sergeant First Class. Last month, I was charged with a DUI in Fairfax. My commander initiated a FLAG and now my promotion is on hold. The civilian case won’t be resolved for months. What happens now?”

Perspective: This is a classic suitability review trigger. The FLAG is mandatory pending the outcome of the civilian charge. Your promotion will be held in abeyance. It is critical to aggressively address the civilian charge while simultaneously keeping your command informed. A proactive approach, such as voluntarily enrolling in an alcohol counseling program before being ordered to, can be powerful mitigation evidence in your future suitability rebuttal. The goal is to show the command you are taking the situation seriously, regardless of the civilian court’s outcome.

Scenario 2: The Old GOMOR

“I’m an Army Captain stationed at Fort Meade, MD, on the promotion list for Major. I just learned my promotion is being held for a suitability review because of a GOMOR I received three years ago as a Lieutenant for an incident overseas. I thought that was behind me. Can they do this?”

Perspective: Yes, they can, and they frequently do. If a GOMOR is permanently filed in your OMPF, it will be seen by every promotion board and will trigger a DASEB review for every subsequent promotion. The strategy here is not to re-litigate the old GOMOR, but to demonstrate a clear and convincing pattern of professional growth and impeccable conduct in the years *since* the GOMOR was issued. Your record of performance as a Captain is now the key evidence to argue that you have overcome that past mistake.

Scenario 3: The “He Said, She Said” AR 15-6

“An AR 15-6 investigation just substantiated a claim of misconduct against me based on one person’s statement, even though I denied it and had witnesses who supported my side. My command is recommending I be removed from the promotion list. I feel like the investigation was biased.”

Perspective: This is a situation where you must directly challenge the findings of the investigation in your suitability rebuttal. Your rebuttal to the DASEB becomes a quasi-appeal of the 15-6. You must meticulously point out the inconsistencies, the lack of corroborating evidence for the accuser’s story, and the evidence the investigator ignored or downplayed. Including sworn statements (affidavits) from your witnesses is crucial. The goal is to show the suitability board that the “substantiated” finding rests on a weak and unreliable foundation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What is the difference between being “selected” and “promoted”?

Being “selected” means a promotion board has chosen you for the next rank and placed you on a promotion list. Being “promoted” is the final act of pinning on the rank. A suitability review happens between selection and promotion.

2. How long does a suitability review take?

The timeline can vary widely. It can take several months, sometimes longer, depending on the complexity of the case, the command levels involved, and the caseload at DASEB. You remain on the list but cannot be promoted until the review is complete.

3. If I’m cleared, do I get back pay for my promotion?

Yes. If the suitability review finds in your favor and you are retained on the promotion list, your date of rank and pay will be retroactively adjusted to when you would have been promoted had the review not occurred.

4. Can I request to appear before the DASEB in person?

No, the DASEB is a “paper” board. They make their decision based solely on the written record before them. This is why the quality and thoroughness of your written rebuttal and supporting documents are absolutely critical.

5. Will hiring a civilian attorney make me look guilty to my command?

No. In my extensive experience, commanders and boards see it as a sign that the soldier is taking the matter seriously. The military provides legal assistance, but for a career-threatening issue, seeking seasoned, knowledgeable counsel is a right and a wise decision. It shows you are using all available resources to properly address the issue.

6. What if the FLAG is lifted? Does the suitability review go away?

Not necessarily. If the underlying adverse information is resolved in your favor (e.g., you are acquitted in a civilian court), the FLAG will be lifted. However, if the command still believes the underlying conduct raises questions about your suitability (e.g., poor judgment leading to the arrest), they can still forward the case for a suitability review.

7. I’m in the National Guard. Is my process different from the active-duty Army?

The core principles and regulations (AR 600-8-19/29) are the same, but the process is different. Your packet will be routed through your state’s JFHQ before going to the national level. Having counsel familiar with the unique command structures of the Virginia and Maryland National Guard is a significant advantage.

8. Can a suitability review be triggered by something on social media?

Absolutely. Any conduct “unbecoming” or that violates Army policies, regardless of where it occurs, can be the basis for adverse action. Inappropriate or extremist posts on social media can and have led to investigations and subsequent suitability reviews.

9. What is the success rate for overturning a negative recommendation?

There are no official statistics, and outcomes are entirely case-specific. Success depends on the nature of the adverse information, the strength of the rebuttal, the quality of the supporting evidence, and the soldier’s overall record. A well-prepared case significantly increases the chances of a favorable outcome.

10. If I’m removed from the promotion list, can I appeal?

Yes. The primary avenue for appeal after an unfavorable final decision is to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). You would argue that the decision was an error or an injustice that needs to be corrected in your record.

11. Does a referred NCOER automatically trigger a suitability review?

Not automatically, but it is a major piece of adverse information that a promotion board will see. If you are selected for promotion despite the referred report, HRC or your command may still initiate a suitability review based on the contents of that report.

12. I’m a good soldier with a high PT score and great evals. Will that be enough?

While a strong record is the foundation of your defense, it is often not enough on its own. You must directly address the adverse information. The board’s primary question is not “Are they a good soldier?” but rather “Does this specific incident or pattern of behavior render them unsuitable for the increased responsibility of the next rank?”

13. What if the adverse information is from many years ago?

The age of the information matters, but it is not a bar to a review. An older incident is generally less damaging than a recent one, especially if you can show a long period of incident-free, positive performance since. The strategy is to emphasize that you have matured and that your recent record is a more accurate reflection of your character.

14. Can my commander just remove me from the list without a DASEB review?

A local commander can recommend removal, but for most promotion lists (SFC and above, and all officer promotions), the final removal authority rests with the Department of the Army, typically through the DASEB process. The commander’s recommendation is a powerful part of the packet, however.

15. What is the single most important part of my rebuttal?

Authenticity and evidence. Your personal statement must be sincere and take appropriate responsibility. And every claim you make, whether about your performance or the facts of the incident, must be backed up with credible, objective evidence.