APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion to the rank of brigadier general (BG) with an appropriate assignment in that rank or that he be retired in the rank of BG. APPLICANT STATES: That he was unjustly denied a promotion to the rank of BG when he was fully qualified and deserving of the promotion. He further states that his nonselection was based on the damaging, inaccurate, and false information sent to the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) requiring him (the applicant) to show cause why he should be retained in the USAR. He goes on to state that he was found not guilty of all of the charges against him, however, during the time he was flagged for the show cause proceedings, he missed out on valuable training, assignments, and possible promotion opportunities. Therefore, he desires the Board to make him whole again. In support of his application he submits selected documents from his records as well as selected documents from the involuntary separation (show cause) proceedings. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR in the pay grade of E-8 on 20 March 1973 for the purpose of accepting a commission as a captain in the USAR. The Army Reserve Command sent the applicant a notification of eligibility for retired pay (20-year letter) at age 60 on 21 September 1978. He was serving in the rank of major at the time. He continued to serve in the USAR and was promoted to the rank of colonel on 13 September 1989. In September 1990, while the applicant’s records were being reviewed by the USAR Officer Professional Development Education Selection Board, it was discovered that the applicant’s records indicated that he had received a doctorate (Ph.D.) in 1976 from an institution that was not accredited and amounted to being no more than a diploma mill. At the time the diploma was issued to the applicant the institution was located in South Dakota. However, at the time the board made its discovery, the institution was in Louisiana and operating under a different name. Consequently, the board president recommended to the OCAR that the applicant be required to show cause why he should be retained in the USAR in the rank of colonel. On 15 April 1991 the applicant was notified that elimination action was being initiated against him for intentional omission or misstatement of facts in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation and conduct unbecoming an officer. The applicant acknowledged the notification and elected to appear before a board of officers with representation by military counsel. The applicant was notified on 23 February 1992 that the board of officers would be convened on 11 April 1992. The findings and recommendations of the board are not contained in the available records. However, on 23 June 1992 the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) informed the applicant that the findings and recommendations of the board were approved and that he would be retained in the USAR. On 27 October 1994 the applicant was released from the USAR Control Group (Individual Management Augmentee) and transferred to the Retired Reserve based on his completion of the maximum authorized years of service. A review of the Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education published by the American Council on Education which serves as the standard by which institutions qualify as acceptable institutions to meet the standards of the Department, does not contain the institution claimed by the applicant to have issued him a doctorate degree in Sociology. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 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 satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 2. The applicant’s contention that he may have missed promotion opportunities while he was flagged is without merit. The suspension of favorable personnel actions does not preclude promotion consideration, it simply precludes an individual from being promoted until the suspension is lifted favorably. Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his contention. 3. The applicant’s contention that he was not selected for promotion to the rank of BG because of inaccurate and false information provided to the OCAR is pure speculation on the applicant’s part. It is a well known fact that promotion selection boards do not reveal their reasons for selection or nonselection. 4. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence of record bears out that the applicant did not have a Ph.D. from an accredited university as required by applicable regulations, he was afforded due process by a show cause board and allowed to remain active in the USAR until he was transferred to the Retired Reserve. There is no evidence that any of the applicant’s rights were violated nor does there appear to be any evidence of error or injustice in this case. 5. 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