Every key event, in sequence. Select any entry marked View Record to open the source document.
Every entry is sourced. Every date is documented. The system's own record makes the case.
CMC issues the official administrative message ordering the convening of the FY25 USMC Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, Major, and Captain Promotion Selection Boards at Harry Lee Hall, MCB Quantico.
Congressionally sanctioned competitive selection process convenes at Harry Lee Hall, MCB Quantico. No adverse information before the board at time of convening.
Results published via official naval message. Promotion confirmed by congress and announced to the public.
Complaint filed against the confirmed selectee by a junior officer with two prior documented misconduct findings. Received by IGMC. No credibility screening. No case assignment. No notification to subject. No action taken for more than 15 months.
The annual board screening confirmed LtCol selectees for the Corps' most demanding command billets — battalion command and equivalent. With active IG matters and an impending promotion hold, the officer was unable to fairly compete with peers. No adverse finding had yet been issued. No misconduct substantiated. The career suppression began before the formal hold was even served.
Written notification signed by Director, Manpower Management Division. States: "A records check revealed potentially adverse information regarding the following allegation: You are the subject of an active Inspector General of the Marine Corps investigation." No case number, no allegation description, no investigating office, and no timeline provided. Officer's name withheld from the September 2024 promotion message.
The statutory promotion date passes without action. Two separate statutory clocks begin: 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5) — an 18-month absolute cap on promotion delay with no extension mechanism — and 10 U.S.C. § 629 — an 18-month promotion list eligibility period. Additional complaints continue to arrive from the officer's current assignment.
Second consecutive annual command screening board conducted while promotion hold remains in effect. Still unpromotable. Still unable to fairly compete with peers for command. Zero substantiated misconduct. Hold continues.
Privacy Act/FOIA request filed for officer's own IGMC case records. Case 2025-USMCPA-###. Response returned with significant gaps — key investigative records not produced. No mention of initial complaint causing promotion hold — because it was lost.
Quantico address to all Department of War General Officers. Four memoranda signed targeting exactly the failures present in this case. Promotion holds limited to "limited circumstances." 45-day implementation deadline set. USMC/DON implementation: none.
The Department of the Navy was required to revise adverse information retention policies within 45 days of the September 30 memorandum. The deadline passes in silence. No guidance issued.
Findings issued on the last open complaint. The investigating officer interviewed 23 witnesses and concluded the conduct "does not rise to the level of misconduct under the UCMJ." Zero misconduct substantiated by the officer's Commanding General. Result: non-punitive letter of caution for communication.
The Office of Special Trial Counsel exercises independent authority over a criminal retaliation allegation (Article 132, UCMJ) filed against the officer. Disposition authority transferred from the commanding officer to OSTC. Independent prosecutorial review begins.
The complainant who filed the criminal retaliation allegation completes a victim preference statement but refuses to participate in any proceedings and declines to testify. The complainant's signature was not obtained on the document. Preference: "Administrative Resolution" only.
The Office of Special Trial Counsel issues its final disposition: "There is no probable cause to believe that [the officer] committed any covered offense." All allegations returned to the commanding officer. The person who filed the criminal allegation refused to testify under oath. The officer was never formally notified that a criminal referral was in process — the chain of command received notification only upon closure.
Two statutory deadlines lapse simultaneously. Under 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5), the 18-month absolute cap on delaying this promotion expired — the statute contains no extension mechanism. Under 10 U.S.C. § 629, the 18-month promotion list eligibility period also expired. A § 629(c)(2) extension was reportedly filed; its legal sufficiency — particularly under the SECWAR's September 30 "limited circumstances" standard — has not been independently verified, nor has a copy been provided to the officer.
Every complaint closed. Every finding: unsubstantiated. Zero misconduct. The promotion remains withheld. No implementing guidance from USMC or DON on any of the four Secretary of War reform memos. The FY26 National Defense Authorization Act included no language implementing the Secretary's IG reform or adverse information provisions — leaving the policy gap unaddressed in statute.
Five formal requests submitted simultaneously: (1) IGMC — full investigative files on all 10 complaints; (2) HQMC Manpower — complete promotion hold file including the 629 extension; (3) SECNAV — adverse information policy implementation documents; (4) IGMC — credibility assessment records; (5) DoD IG — inter-agency coordination records. Submitted via official government FOIA portals. All pending response.
Per multiple chain of command Judge Advocate officers and officers within the DC M&RA Manpower Management Division: administrative processing after case closure is expected to require an additional 3–6 months simply to obtain a SECNAV signature/approval to lift the promotion delay.