IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 April 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100022047 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5. 2. The applicant states he is presenting new evidence and argument that was not previously considered by the Board. a. He takes issue with the way the Record of Proceedings (ROP) was written regarding the reference to filing an application within 3 years of discovery. He explains that he had no way of knowing there was an error until approval of the Bronze Star Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster was approved in 2009. Accordingly, he feels he met the 3-year obligation. b. He takes exception to the way the ROP was presented. The five short paragraphs give the impression that he was promoted to major (MAJ)/O-4 after award of the second Bronze Star Medal. The promotion board had selected him for promotion several months before receiving this award. However, having the second Bronze Star Medal in his records would have been extremely important for his promotion consideration for LTC. c. He contends that the recent approval of the second Bronze Star Medal is significant and meets the requirement of material error because the award shows how he performed in combat, which is a top priority when one is being considered for promotion. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090021582, on 10 June 2010. 2. The applicant makes three arguments, two of which discuss the content and format of the ROP and one speaking of material error. In the interest of justice, these arguments should be considered by the Board. 3. The original ROP: a. contains a standardized paragraph explaining the basic statute of limitations requirement as it applies to filing applications to this Board; b. shows a substantive review of his case was conducted despite the 3-year statute of limitations; c. provided several short paragraphs informing the Board of the essential elements of the case and explaining the sequence of events concerning the applicant's issue; d. shows in paragraph 4 of the Consideration of Evidence (COE) the applicant was promoted to major in 1973; e. shows in paragraph 7 of the COE that the subject award was approved in 2009 for his meritorious service in 1971 and 1972; f. clearly stated in paragraph 9c of the COE that awards below the Silver Star that are missing from the record do not constitute a material error requiring consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for promotion to LTC based on the recent approval of a second Bronze Star Medal. 2. The applicant argues that because he had no way of knowing there was an error until the approval of the Bronze Star Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster in 2009, he feels he met the 3-year obligation. The original ROP clearly states that the Board elected to conduct a substantive review despite the 3-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, this argument is of no consequence. 3. The applicant takes exception to the way in which the original ROP was written. Specifically, he contends that five short paragraphs give the impression that he was promoted to major after award of the Bronze Star Medal and does not show how important the award would have been for his promotion consideration to LTC. Paragraph 7 of the COE clearly states that the subject award was approved in 2009 for his meritorious service in 1971 and 1972. Furthermore, paragraph 4 of the COE clearly states that the applicant was promoted to major in 1973. The issue was clearly and concisely presented to the Board. There is no evidence showing that this presentation was misleading or incomplete. Accordingly, this argument has no merit. 4. The applicant contends that the recent approval of the second Bronze Star Medal is significant and meets the requirement of material error because it shows how he performed in combat, which is a top priority when being considered for promotion. This issue was clearly discussed in paragraph 9c of the original ROP. To reiterate, an officer will not be considered or reconsidered by an SSB based on missing commendatory data for awards below the Silver Star. Therefore, the applicant's argument is without merit. 5. The applicant's arguments have been given careful consideration. However, they do not sufficiently show that what the Board originally determined was unjust or inequitable. 6. There is no error or injustice in this case requiring further Board action. 7. Therefore, the applicant's request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __ _X____ ___X___ ___X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090021582, dated 10 June 2010. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022047 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022047 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1