APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, pay grade 0-5, be effective and with a date of rank of 15 December 1992, and that he receive all pay and allowances due from that date. APPLICANT STATES: That a material error was made during the 7 December 1992 United States Army Reserve (USAR) Unit Vacancy Board in that a letter from another officer, with his same surname, declining promotion was erroneously included in his promotion packet. He states that in September 1993 he received his promotion packet from his unit technician and discovered a letter of declination in his packet from a first lieutenant from a different Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) with his same surname. He contacted the Reserve Command point of contact in Atlanta, Georgia, and was informed that that lieutenant’s records had also been reviewed by the 7 December 1992 unit vacancy board. The point of contact could not explain the error or the impact that the letter could have had on the board. He states that he was a senior major with significant command and staff time, in both active and reserve assignments, had a strong file, and was surprised when he was not selected, especially in view of the fact that he was selected for promotion by the mandatory promotion board the first time he was considered. He states that if he had been selected by the unit vacancy board, his date of rank (DOR) would have been 15 December 1992 instead of his current DOR of 5 June 1993. He contends that the lieutenant’s letter in his file resulted in his nonselection, that it must be assumed that the letter was confused as his, otherwise, it would have been removed from his packet. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant enclosed a 24 September 1992 memorandum to the 79th ARCOM deputy chief of staff for personnel, from a first lieutenant with the applicant’s same surname, in which that lieutenant stated that although he was eligible for a unit vacancy promotion, he did not wish to be considered. On 23 February 1993 the Reserve Command in Atlanta notified the applicant’s ARCOM commander (125th ARCOM in Nashville, Tennessee), that neither the applicant nor an alternate candidate was selected for promotion to fill the position vacancy. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Army Reserve Command in Atlanta. An official of that command stated that all proceedings pertaining to the December 1992 unit vacancy promotion board had been destroyed, that there was no available information to support or contradict the applicant’s claim that the board was influenced by the presence of the declination letter, however, because the letter was from a lieutenant declining promotion to captain, an assumption could be made that board members would have ignored the letter, and that the declination was misfiled. Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policy and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. Paragraph 3-14 of that regulation prescribes procedures for the convening of standby advisory boards formed to prevent any injustice to an officer who were eligible for promotion but whose records contained a material error when reviewed by the selection board. This paragraph goes on to say, in pertinent part, that an officer’s records will be referred for standby advisory board action when HQDA determines that the ABCMR requests such a referral. HQDA may find a “material error” caused an officer’s nonselection by a promotion board, based on a determination that there is a fair risk that ... another person’s adverse document had been filed in an officer’s OMPF and was seen by the board. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. The applicant has provided neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that the aforementioned declination letter was included in his records when reviewed by members of the 7 December 1992 unit vacancy board. 2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director