IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 August 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003351 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 promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) under the criteria used by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, Colonel, Judge Advocate General (JAG) Promotion Selection Board. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that when his promotion file was considered by the FY 2011, Colonel, JAG Promotion Selection Board it did not contain the back page of his DA Form 67-8 (U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period ending 1 November 1996. He goes on to state that he requested reconsideration through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and his request was denied because the age of the OER did not meet the minimum criteria to warrant SSB promotion consideration which he finds to be arbitrary, unjust, and not published. 3. The applicant provides a four-page memorandum to the Board explaining his application, copies of emails between the applicant and HRC regarding his promotion file, a list of documents he contends made up his promotion file, his request for reconsideration by an SSB, and a copy of the OER in question. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve second lieutenant on 11 May 1990. He was ordered to active duty on 3 October 1993 and was promoted to the rank of major in the Regular Army on 1 June 2001. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the JAG Corps on 1 July 2006. 2. On 15 February 2012, officials from the HRC Promotions Branch dispatched an email to the applicant regarding his request for promotion reconsideration and informed him that his request could not be granted because a Promotion Board Panel viewed the document he claimed was missing from his Promotion Board File (PBF). Officials at HRC also attached a copy of his PBF and informed him that documents 28 and 29 were the documents in question. The OER in question was a report rendered when he was serving in the rank of captain. 3. In the processing of this case, on 21 March 2013, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC Officer Promotions Branch. The advisory official opined that a review of the applicant's official record shows the OER in question was available for review by the selection board and verified through the Department of the Army Secretariat that the contested OER was seen by the promotion selection board in its entirety. 4. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. He did not respond. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) provides that officers who discover material error existed in their file at the time they were non-selected for promotion may request reconsideration by an SSB. Reconsideration will normally not be granted when the error is minor or when the officer, by exercising reasonable care, could have detected and corrected the error in the Officer Record Brief (ORB) or Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). It is the officer's responsibility to review his ORB and AMHRR before the board convenes and to notify the board in writing of possible administrative deficiencies in them. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted and appear to lack merit. 2. While the applicant disagrees with the language used by HRC in denying his request for an SSB to the rank of colonel, the bottom line in this case is that there is insufficient evidence to support his contention that the FY2011 JAG Colonel Promotion Selection Board did not review the OER in question in its entirety. 3. Officials at HRC have verified that the OER in question was present for review and was reviewed by the promotion selection board and the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome their verification. 4. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to show otherwise, there appears to be no error or injustice in this case to warrant correction of his records. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________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) AR20130003351 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003351 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1