Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9305864
Original file (9305864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be promoted to lieutenant colonel, that his two nonselections for promotion be deleted from his records, and that his commission be reinstated.
APPLICANT STATES : That he was led to believe by military publications, regulations and his Personnel Management Officer (PMO) that he would be considered to be satisfactorily participating in the USAR if he were to accept assignment to the USAR Control Group (IRR) and attended a service school. After having limited participation in the USAR for 3 years due to employment conflicts, he decided to take advantage of the participation flexibility of the IRR. He has since discovered that promotion boards falsely believe that reservists who do not receive officer evaluation reports (OER’s) are not satisfactorily participating, which results in their low percentage of selection for promotion. Accordingly, those reservists assigned to the IRR who attend Command and General Staff College (C&GSC) are unfairly placed at a disadvantage with their peers who receive OER’s, since reservists attending C&GSC do not receive an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) until they complete the entire course. He then questions the legitimacy of promotion boards applying a best qualified criteria in addition to a fully qualified requirement. The applicant concludes that he is qualified for promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he participated within both the spirit and the letter of Army regulations and other directives, and was unfairly passed over for promotion due to the promotion board harboring inaccurate views of satisfactory participation and applying selection criteria which is above and beyond that which is called for by Army regulations.

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

He was commissioned as a second lieutenant, Regular Army, on 30 December 1970, was promoted to captain, and was honorably discharged on 6 August 1976. He immediately accepted a commission in the ARNG and served until his transfer to the IRR on 20 October 1981.

The applicant’s Chronological Statement of Retirement Points shows that he had earned 52 retirement points for the Retirement Year Ending (RYE) August 1982, 70 for RYE August 1983, 28 for RYE August 1984, 60 for RYE August 1985, 25 for RYE August 1986, 16 for RYE 1987, and 16 for RYE 1988. Thereafter, he had earned qualifying years for retired pay (a minimum of 50 points) except for RYE August 1991.

On 21 December 1990 the applicant enlisted in the USAR in pay grade E-7, thereby vacating his commission.

In the processing of this case advisory opinions (COPIES ATTACHED) were obtained from the C&GSC School of Corresponding Studies; from the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), Combat Arms Division; and from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) from the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components.

The opinion from the C&GSC confirmed that students only receive an AER upon completion of the entire course, but that phase completion certificates sufficed to show an officers participation. In the applicant’s case he initially enrolled in C&GSC on 28 November 1986 and disenrolled on 28 November 1987. He enrolled a second time on 1 October 1988 and was issued a 50 percent completion certificate on 17 April 1990.

The opinion from the ARPERCEN stated that an officer is responsible for his or her own career and the PMO is normally the best source of information for the officer. However, an average PMO is responsible for 1,200 officers and, therefore, is unable to keep all of those officers abreast of changing requirements.

The opinion from the PERSCOM stated that the 1990 promotion board only used selection criteria contained in the Memorandum of Instruction, the promotion regulation, and the law. The PERSCOM continues that the views the applicant referenced were not from the senior officers comprising the promotion board. However, the applicant did not acquire an OER after 21 June 1985 and, therefore, did not have a rater or senior rater to serve under or contemporaries to be judged against. The PERSCOM concludes that the applicant does not have a basis for reconsideration by a Promotion Advisory Board.

 DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinions, it is concluded:

1. Contrary to the applicant’s contentions, the reason for his second nonselection is not a matter of record. Therefore, the applicant’s contention that his lack of OER’s was the only reason for his nonselection is pure speculation.

2. However, in an era of downsizing it would be reasonable to presume that officer promotions are very competitive. Where attendance at a service school is considered satisfactory participation and may have been sufficient to warrant promotion selection at one time, it may not be today. If the number of promotions are limited it stands to reason that those officers who do more than the minimum will be selected over those officers who only do what is necessary to satisfactorily participate. Therein lies the difference between fully qualified and best qualified.

3. Since the applicant was competing with officers assigned to units who had attended 48 unit training assemblies and annual training while also completing C&GSC, and since he had limited participation in the USAR for 3 years prior to his assignment to the IRR, his not being considered among the best qualified for promotion is understandable.

4. 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069736C070402

    Original file (2002069736C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A 1989 USAR Standby Advisory Board reviewed his record and selected him for promotion to MAJ. A 1989 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Proceedings directed that his discharge be voided, that he be promoted to MAJ, that he be credited with qualifying service for Reserve retirement, and that an explanation be placed in his records to show that the resulting gap in Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) was due to no fault of the officer. On 18 October 1988, ARPERCEN issued...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000374C070208

    Original file (20040000374C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's records show he received an OER for the period 1 May 1989 through 30 April 1990. The evidence of record shows that the applicant contacted USAHRC – STL (AR-PERSCOM at the time) in October 2001 concerning reappointment and was told to contact another office to see if he was eligible. There is insufficient evidence on which to justify a correction to the applicant's records (such as showing that he was discharged from the USAR prior to being twice nonselected for promotion to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605413C070209

    Original file (9605413C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the aforementioned OER’s were rendered during his prior active service as a commissioned officer and the presence of them in his OMPF serves to create an unfair and unequal discriminator against him for promotion selection. When a soldier reenters the Army after a break in service, the old OMPF will be sent from the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) to the appropriate OMPF custodian. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607522C070209

    Original file (9607522C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His request was denied based on his failure to complete 50 percent of the C&GSC prior to the convening of the second promotion board. While promotion consideration is mandatory, selection for promotion is contingent on an officer meeting promotion eligibility requirements and whether he or she has satisfactorily participated in Reserve training. The PERSCOM continues that the applicant’s contentions concerning his not being notified of his failure to be promoted on his first consideration...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509193C070209

    Original file (9509193C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 states, in pertinent part, that Department of the Army Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) are formed to prevent any...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058654C070421

    Original file (2001058654C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he was non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve due his non-completion of Command and General Staff College (CGSC). Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14506, states that an officer in the grade of major who twice fails to be selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel will be removed from an active status when he completes...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072743C070403

    Original file (2002072743C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 August 1997, the OKARNG issued a NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) honorably discharging the applicant from the OKARNG as a SGT, pay grade E-5, by reason of the individual's request. The investigation further substantiated that: the applicant submitted false information on his application for Army National Guard federal recognition in January 1987 by stating “No” to the question, “Have you ever been arrested or convicted by a civil court of other than minor...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056493C070420

    Original file (2001056493C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that he be given a Fitness for Duty Evaluation (FFDE), that his transfer to the Retired Reserve be revoked, that he be returned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), and that he be promoted to colonel in accordance with the 28 January 2000 Standby Advisory Board selection for such. The AR-PERSCOM Command Surgeon provided an advisory opinion which he states, in effect, that: 1) the term he used, “temporary medical disqualification,” was not meant in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067767C070402

    Original file (2002067767C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) states, in pertinent part, that education requirements for promotion eligibility for MAJ are a bachelor degree and completion of an officer advanced course prior to the convening date of the promotion board. It does appear that the records reviewed by the promotion board did not correctly show this information.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069937C070402

    Original file (2002069937C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s military records show that he served as an enlisted member of the Army National Guard in Pennsylvania and then New Jersey, from 24 April 1980 through 26 June 1987. The applicant was correctly discharged according to regulation and law for two-time nonselection for promotion to CPT and is not eligible to be reinstated in the Reserve as an officer beyond the correction date of 12 February 2001 above, although he may be eligible to enlist which can be determined by the...