APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) in the USAR.

APPLICANT STATES:  That a recent review of his records revealed that they did not contain his latest officer evaluation report (OER) or his academic evaluation report (AER), indicating completion of the command and general staff officer course (CGSC).  He further states that his assignment manager informed him that his record was not reviewed by the last LTC promotion selection board; therefore, he should receive promotion reconsideration.   

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant is a USAR major with a date of rank of 1 August 1986.  At the time of his application to this Board, he was assigned to a USAR troop program unit (TPU) in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Office of Promotions, St. Louis, Missouri.  It opined that the applicant’s records were reviewed by the 1993 and 1994 USAR LTC Promotion Selection Boards and that his AER was present in his records when reviewed by those boards.  It also opined that all eligible OER’s were also reviewed by the boards.  The PERSCOM further opined that all of the critical elements (OER’s, highest military/civilian education, and awards) were present in the promotion selection board consideration files and that the applicant does not qualify for reconsideration for promotion. 

Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy and procedures for the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the USAR.  It states, in pertinent part, that Department of the Army Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) are formed to prevent any injustice to officers or former officers who were eligible for promotion but whose records were, through error, not submitted to a promotion selection board for consideration or contained a material error when reviewed by the board.  In determining that a material error caused an officer’s nonselection by a promotion board, it must first be determined that one or more evaluation reports that should have been seen by a board (based on announced cut-off date) were missing from an officer’s OMPF, that the officer’s military or civilian education was incorrect, or that the officer was awarded a Silver Star or higher that was missing from the officer’s OMPF.

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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  It appears, based on the information obtained from the PERSCOM, that the applicant’s records were up to date and that they were properly reviewed by the appropriate promotion selection boards.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no basis to grant the applicant promotion reconsideration.

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




		David R. Kinneer
		Executive Secretary