ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2002078025
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078025

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Mr. William Blakely | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Joann H. Langston | | Chairperson
| Mr. Lester Echols | | Member
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | | Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, correction of his date of rank (DOR) to captain (CPT) from 1 October 1997 to 1 October 1996.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the file reviewed by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 (96), CPT Army Promotion Selection Board, did not contain copies of his Marine Corps Fitness Reports or any translation of that performance into Army format.  He states that the promotion board was unable to weigh his entire military service through the file presented, and he was told that he needed Army Officer Efficiency Reports(OER) to be promoted.  In support of his application, he submits a packet containing an explanation the lack of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and a copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB). 

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

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Army and he is assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  He holds rank of CPT and his branch specialty is Aviation.

On 29 March 1996, the applicant submitted a letter to the President of the 
FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board, in which he provided a brief history of his prior service in the Marine Corps which contained information that was missing from his ORB, and an explanation for why this information was not in his record.  Included with his letter to the board was a memorandum from the Commanding General (CG), Fort Rucker, Alabama, which further clarified why the applicant’s record did not contain an Army OER and explained the circumstances of the applicant’s transfer from the Marine Corps to the Army.  

The applicant was considered for promotion by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board, and was not selected for promotion.  However, he was selected for promotion to CPT by the FY 97 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Promotions Branch, US Army Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  This PERSCOM promotion official states that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board that convened on 30 April 1996 and recessed on 25 June 2002.  The applicant requested promotion reconsideration on 25 June 2002, and this request was denied by PERSCOM on 12 August 2002.  

This PERSCOM official further explains that the basis for the PERSCOM denial of the applicant’s reconsideration request was that his promotion board file contained the Marine Corps Fitness reports and the Academic Evaluation Report (AER) he claimed were missing.  This resulted in a determination that there was no material error in his record.  Therefore, he failed to satisfy the legal and regulatory requirements for promotion reconsideration before a SSB.  It was finally opined that the applicant provided no new additional information to warrant promotion reconsideration and recommends that his application to this Board be denied.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he responded on 21 October 2002.  He states that the ORB that was reviewed by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board was missing the following information:  his second lieutenant permanent date of rank; the type of his original appointment; all his Marine Corps schools; two Marine Corps awards; previous Marine Corps assignments; and his prior service time.  He claims that he understands that the ORB information and content are the responsibility of the officer.  However, the errors in his ORB resulted from his not receiving guidance or assistance in the updating of information upon his arrival in the Army from the Marine Corps, and the failure of his branch manager to update his ORB before it was reviewed by the promotion board.  He states that he was told to take a photo and to make sure information on his ORB was correct.  In an attempt to update his ORB, the codes for the Marine Corps Schools could not be found and his branch manager would not update his ORB with the information from his  separation document (DD Form 214).  

The applicant further contends that the microfiche provided to the promotion board was of poor quality.  Although the promotion board was not provided any hard copies of his Marine Corps Fitness Reports, the microfiche provided was such poor quality that the performance information contained therein was difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve.  He also states that his branch manager told him that his non-selection was a result of his not having Army OER’s, but his file did contain an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from flight school.  He now believes that not having Army OERS was used as a prejudice against him.  Finally, he states that he now believes that the promotion board was provided poor quality microfiche and incomplete records that did not represent his accomplishments and experience in the military to that date.   

Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the Army policy and procedures for officer promotions.  Chapter 7 contains guidance on promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB).  It states, in pertinent part, that an officer or warrant officer may be reconsidered for promotion by a SSB when one or more of the following conditions exist:  an officer was not considered for promotion from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error; a promotion board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error; and/or the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not 
have before it some material information.

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 Board notes that the contention of the applicant that his DOR should be adjusted from 1 October 1997 to 1 October 1996.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s promotion file that was reviewed by the promotion board in question included copies of the Marine Corps Fitness Reports and AER he claimed were missing.  In addition, the letter of explanation he provided, which included the information that was missing from his ORB, was also included in the file.  This also included a letter from the CG of Fort Rucker containing an explanation of why the applicant’s record did not have an Army OER on file. 

3.  Given the promotion board in question had before it in some form all the information the applicant claimed was missing, the Board finds insufficient evidence to show that a material error existed in the applicant’s record at the time it was reviewed by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board.  

4.  In view of the facts of this case, the Board concurs with the conclusion contained in the PERSCOM advisory opinion that the applicant has failed to provide new or additional information that would warrant referring his case to a SSB for promotion reconsideration.  Therefore, the Board finds that the requested relief is not warranted 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

__JHL__  __  LE   _  __ ALR  __  DENY APPLICATION 

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002078025
SUFFIX |
RECON | YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/20
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .  .  .  .  .
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 131.0500
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |