Yes, you read that right, Brown was awarded the 16th highest in the precedence of 43 medals in the Army's hierarchy for a speech he made at the Northeast Regional Jag On-site Conference. The National Guard records that Scott Brown released, which were posted online (see page 70), show that he was awarded an Army Commendation medal for that speech, which he gave in March 2010. See Section 3-17 of this PDF at an Army web site to judge for yourself how closely the award of this medal met the Army's own standards. Supporters of Scott Brown are continuing to make a major issue of whether Elizabeth Warren might have gained advantage from claiming a minuscule bit of native-American heritage, though no one has produced any evidence to show that Warren actually received any favorable treatment. In the case of Brown, if you make a careful and informed read through the links and references below the fold, there are a number of items, in addition to the medal, suggestive of special treatment and favoritism on the part of the National Guard. The records show that Brown's unusual reinstatement into the Guard and subsequent promotion occurred after he became a Massachusetts state senator. He was awarded the Army Commendation medal, promoted again, and assigned to a billet at the very top of the National Guard's headquarters bureaucracy in the Pentagon after being elected a U.S. Senator. The records provide no evidence that Brown had any role in requesting special treatment, but even if that treatment only accrued to Brown as an unrequested gratuity, it raises an important question about whether the Guard acts strictly on merit or gives weight to currying favor with influential politicians by various means, including prominently citing their legislative positions in official service records provided to promotion boards for use in deliberation.
Details below the fold.
Please note, the specialized navigator window on the site where Brown's military records are posted does not consistently land on the page numbers referenced. You may need to check a page just before or just after the ones listed to find the page with the actual content being referenced. You also might want to keep the first instance of the links that reference page numbers open in another tab and just enter different numbers in the field to change the page being viewed. Follow this link and scroll to bottom for an alternative path to view the records.
The practices of the National Guard and Reserves are a peculiar subset of the already arcane procedures followed by the military, in general. The information below is offered for readers to review, draw their own conclusions and post comments. Any insight, especially by those knowledgeable about the military's policies and practices for promotions and award nominations, about whether the record suggests that the Guard granted special treatment would be especially valuable. Some partisans think it is a huge election issue whether or not Elizabeth Warren gained special treatment by claiming native-American heritage. Would it be merely an election issue, or a national scandal, if the National Guard and Reserves could feel it is advantageous, or even necessary, to use promotion and retention actions to curry favor with state legislators or members of the U.S. Congress who are serving in their ranks, especially those who can influence their budgets by sitting on key committees? (Scott Brown sat on the Veterans and Homeland Security committee in the Massachusetts State Senate and currently sits on the Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security Committees in the US Senate)
Over the years, I’ve heard a number of friends, relatives and acquaintances, who are veterans, talk about their experience with the military’s up or out promotion process, and several of those people were passed over twice for promotion from officer grade O-4 to O-5 in the active duty ranks. In this context, the information in the records about Brown's promotion to Colonel (especially on first consideration, (if that is the case) after being passed over on first try for Major and LT Colonel are curious.
Some Background. Scott Brown’s Massachusetts National Guard (MAARNG) records show that since 1979, he has served 33 years after joining the enlisted ranks, gaining promotion to an officer in 1984 after completing ROTC, shifting to become a JAG Corps lawyer upon becoming a lawyer in civilian life, all culminating in promotion to full Colonel, grade 0-6 in 2011. Several things appear in the record that could well be regarded as impediments to achieving promotion to full Colonel (apparently on the first try) ahead of others in a candidate pool that presumably included a substantial number of officers that actually deployed with one of the 22 different units of the MAARNG that were activated since 1990. Beyond the regular drills one weekend a month, there is no indication his attributes justifying promotion to that senior rank included any meritorious duty in any mobilization or call up for anything longer than the typical two weeks per year. By contrast, the Massachusetts National Guard (MAARNG) web site (last 8 paragraphs down) shows callups/mobilizations of MAARNG units and personnel starting in 1990 included 5 units for Gulf War I, 5 units in 1995 for Bosnia, 5 units in 2001 for Afghanistan, and 7 units in 2003 serving in the Second Iraq War. A November 2011 web article reported a total of 7 deaths having been suffered by MAARNG members, with a total of 1,400 MAARNG members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2011.
To quote the MAARNG web site, “Since 2001, virtually all Massachusetts Army National Guard units and most of its Soldiers have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, with several units and many Soldiers having served twice or more.”
- There is no information in the record showing that the callups and deployments of the soldiers in
“virtually all” units included Scott Brown, despite presumably useful qualifications he gained from his completion of the “Infantry Officer’s Basic Course” in April 1985 and the “Command and General Staff Officer Course” in May 2005. In August 2003, one MAARNG unit deployed to relatively safe Guantanamo Bay where Brown’s skills as a JAG officer might have been much more relevant to the unit’s day-to-day duties than in the Middle East
- The most recent and intriguing item that hints at intervention on his behalf was his being awarded an Army Commendation Medal in April 2010 (see pg. 70) for a speech he gave as US Senator-elect. Talks, briefings, and presentations usually get a nice letter of appreciation but a full blown commendation medal for a speech? While 1,400 MAARNG members were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course the recommendation for award of this medal made due note of his status as US Senator-elect and its timing became one of the most prominent and current documents in his record that was available for review by the Colonel selection board. The award justification writeup specifically lauded Brown for spending time after the speech meeting and greeting most of the soldiers in attendance. Seems like the Guard elevated a politician doing what a politician does as a matter of course (i.e., speeches and photo ops) to something that merits the 16th highest Army award. See also Section 3-17 of this PDF to make your own assessment of how well speechifying meets the criteria for award of this medal.
- The records show he was passed over for promotion on the first of the maximum two allowable tries twice in his Guard career, the first in June 1996 for promotion to Major (see pg. 105). Officers who fail to be selected for promotion to a specific rank on their second round of eligibility are usually forced to retire (sometimes in the Guard & Reserves, they are allowed to remain in, but in a non-pay status)
- He was again passed over at first try in zone in Feb. 2004 for promotion from Major to LT Colonel (grade O-5). He was actually passed over twice (see pg. 103) for promotion to LT Colonel and (see pg. 100) notified of his separation but a published report attributed to Brown himself the explanation that he was reinstated when a wartime extension board acted to reinstate numerous National Guard officers around the country. By the time he was reinstated, he had completed a specific course requirement needed for promotion that he had lacked previously and was subsequently promoted to LT Colonel. I did a lot of Google searching about the "wartime extension board" and came up empty. Comments by anyone who can clarify this particular issue with independent information are very welcome otherwise there will be no information to confirm or contest Brown's assertion that political connections were not a factor in his reinstatement.
- This issue of passovers may seem to be nitpicking, but first time passovers for earlier promotions are a valuable criterion for use in selection board deliberations because they are purely OBJECTIVE and reflect the action of a panel using standard procedures, devoid of any need to account for a rater’s reputation for toughness in a Officer Evaluation Report. Of course, by the time he was being considered for promotion to Colonel, his status as a sitting US Senator with a recently awarded Army Commendation Medal might have been more important to the promotion board than the expediency of his prior promotions.
- Brown's numerous Officer Evaluation Reports are all highly laudatory. On two occasions, when ratings were issued at completion of training by officers who appeared to be regular active duty military, rather than superiors in the MAARNG hierarchy, the ratings are notably lower, with a stingy application of laudatory language. In June 1996, a rating issued by USMC Major Ralph H. Kohlmann (Professor Criminal Law Department) upon completion of the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course, (see pg. 64) rated Brown at the “Achieved Course Standards” level, below the “Exceeded Course Standards” where up to 20% of the attendees were allowed to be rated. Oddly, the rating form showed boxes checked off as “Not Evaluated” for each of: “Written Communication”; “Oral Communication”; “Leadership Skills”; “Contributed to Group Work”; and “Evaluation of Student’s Research Ability”. One wonders exactly what the instructor was tasked to observe during this 11 day course on Military Law? Hard to understand how the checkoff box items were not important, core rating factors for the course but his exceptional performance on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) WAS worthy of an explicit mention in the narrative. There is no assertion this was in any way a bad rating, but it is very far from the “walks on water” type rating usually associated with officers getting promoted to the rather exclusive rank of full Colonel. (DOD Data for 2010 (chart 4.06, page 72) show that the O-6 rank is only 6.6% of the commissioned officer corps in the Army National Guard and the General Officer ranks of O-7 and above being a minuscule 0.6%).
- Brown completed the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course in June of 1996 while the 5 units of the MAARNG were progressing through their deployments in Bosnia during 1995. There are probably many topics in military JAG training that don’t readily transfer to civilian legal practice, but there is likely much more application of military legal training to civilian practice than for specialties like combat arms and artillery. Rush Limbaugh once ridiculed lawyer Paul Hackett as a "staff puke" for comments Hackett made after serving as a Marine reservist on active duty in Ramadi and Falujah. Wonder how Limbaugh would characterize Scott Brown for getting the full pay and benefits of an officer to gain legal training at the National Guard’s expense (see pgs. 64, 106, 132) while also earning points toward retirement pay, especially when one of those training assignments occurred while other MAARNG personnel were deployed, or just completing deployment, in Bosnia? If interested, the records also show his grades from attending civilian law school at this link (see pg 50)
- His rating report by an Army Captain and Army Major at the completion of the Infantry Officer’s Basic Class in April 1985 (see pg. 40) indicated,
“2LT Brown performed in an Average manner...” and “Among officers in my platoon, he ranked among the middle 60% “. The checkoff box rating indicated he “Achieved Course Standards” rather than the highest rating of “Exceeded Course Standards”.
A rating from long ago, but hard to spin it as anything but mediocre.
- Three of his Officer Evaluation Reports (see pgs. 7, 131, and 166), starting in April 2006 included explicit citation of his position in the Massachusetts State Senate, including mention of his serving as ranking member on the Veterans and Homeland Security committee. Even before becoming a US Senator, explicit inclusion of that type of information is a pretty big and obvious flag to promotion boards that he holds a day job with a special ability to affect the MAARNG. One has to contemplate what impact those three mentions of his ability to affect the Guard's interest had on promotion boards in comparison to Warren checking off a box indicating native-American heritage?
- On 7 June 2006, the record shows formal orders (see pg. 119) were issued to Brown for just a single day to march in a parade, granting points toward eligibility for retirement pay but no pay or expenses for the time on duty. For the speech in March 2010 that led to the Army Commendation Medal, there is no indication in the records that Brown received official orders to present the speech to the Northeast Regional Jag On-site Conference in a fashion that gave him either drill pay or granted points toward retirement pay. If points for retirement pay can be justified by marching in a parade, one would think that a speech that was so demanding of time and effort that it earned a medal would be deserving of at least some points toward retirement pay. This begs the question, was he actually being recognized for the speech in his capacity as Massachusetts State Senator and/or US Senator elect? This is intriguing and not at all trivial, for if he was not performing in his official capacity as an activated or drilling officer of the Guard, was he even eligible for award of an Army Commendation Medal for that specific occasion? It is quite reasonable to question if the medal nomination (with its prominent mention of his senatorial status in Achievement #2) and its timing were motivated to help the Guard boost his prospects for promotion to full Colonel in competition with other candidates who may have had deployments into war zones appearing in their service records.
It is certainly valid to question the negatives described above as the inverse of cherry picking (maybe call them prune plucking). By contrast, if you want to read highlights enumerated in a more conventional fashion that exemplifies cherry picking, view this link.
The issue of controversy here is whether the Guard and Reserves can overlook the potential consequences of slighting one of their members who is a legislator by passing them over for promotion? Sen. Lindsey Graham is already a Colonel in the AF reserve and Sen. Mark Kirk is a Commander in the Navy reserve. Do you think the National Guard's promotion of Scott Brown to full Colonel was based solely on the merits, when one of the truly distinctive aspects of his 33 year MAARNG career was never being called up or deployed, including the 12 year period, "when virtually all Massachusetts Army National Guard units and most of its Soldiers have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, with several units and many Soldiers having served twice or more."
Brown's new posting after departure from a MAARNG unit to the Maryland National Guard is the capstone on the suspicion that the Guard may be carefully currying favor with him. Brown has been reassigned to a position in the Pentagon headquarters office of the National Guard Bureau. Now the last I checked, the Pentagon is in Virginia, a bit of a peculiar location for a regular billet of the Maryland National Guard. It is well worth verifying whether this particular billet even existed before the Guard chose a US Senator to fill it.
If, after reading Brown's own statement in the linked article,
Asked how he can handle a top job at the Guard’s central office while serving in the Senate, Brown said it will be “exceedingly beneficial’’ to the Guard to have him on Capitol Hill
you still think the Guard's string of decisions to reinstate Brown, promote him, and assign him to the Guard's headquarters office in the Pentagon took absolutely no account of his influential state senate and current US Senate assignments (Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security Committees) may I further inquire as to what type and sizes you will have preference for when making your bridge purchase?
While it may be hard to objectively conclude what this all means in the case specific to Scott Brown, it exemplifies one thing that is abundantly clear. There is a strong conflict of interest for the Guard and Reserves to have members who are also sitting members of state legislatures and the US Congress. There are only 535 members of Congress vs. a reserve population of about 379,000 The number of legislators in each state probably forms an even smaller fraction of the respective state’s National Guard, which totals about 469,000 serving in the Army and Air National Guard across all states. Clearly, the populations of the state legislatures and US Congress make a trivial contribution to the pool of people the Guard and Reserves draw from to meet their personnel targets. But there is anything but triviality in the reverse proposition. The potential influence of just one sitting legislator on the budgets and policies of the Guard and Reserves can be huge, possibly decisive when that legislator sits on key committees in the US Senate. The possibility of political motivation in the National Guard's actions affecting Scott Brown's career in the Guard, and not those of Brown himself, is the real center of controversy here. When fully three US Senators have potential for personal quid pro quo relationships with the National Guard and Reserves, in a time when the Senate will be under intense pressure to deal with things like sequestration of the Pentagon budget, the potential for a two-way conflict of interest deserves a thorough and transparent review at the Congressional level.