APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, pay grade 0-5, be effective and with a date of rank of 15 December 1992, and that he receive all pay and allowances due from that date.
APPLICANT STATES: That a material error was made during the 7 December 1992 United States Army Reserve (USAR) Unit Vacancy Board in that a letter from another officer, with his same surname, declining promotion was erroneously included in his promotion packet. He states that in September 1993 he received his promotion packet from his unit technician and discovered a letter of declination in his packet from a first lieutenant from a different Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) with his same surname. He contacted the Reserve Command point of contact in Atlanta, Georgia, and was informed that that lieutenants records had also been reviewed by the 7 December 1992 unit vacancy board. The point of contact could not explain the error or the impact that the letter could have had on the board. He states that he was a senior major with significant command and staff time, in both active and reserve assignments, had a strong file, and was surprised when he was not selected, especially in view of the fact that he was selected for promotion by the mandatory promotion board the first time he was considered. He states that if he had been selected by the unit vacancy board, his date of rank (DOR) would have been 15 December 1992 instead of his current DOR of
5 June 1993. He contends that the lieutenants letter in his file resulted in his nonselection, that it must be assumed that the letter was confused as his, otherwise, it would have been removed from his packet.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enclosed a 24 September 1992 memorandum to the 79th ARCOM deputy chief of staff for personnel, from a first lieutenant with the applicants same surname, in which that lieutenant stated that although he was eligible for a unit vacancy promotion, he did not wish to be considered.
On 23 February 1993 the Reserve Command in Atlanta notified the applicants ARCOM commander (125th ARCOM in Nashville, Tennessee), that neither the applicant nor an alternate candidate was selected for promotion to fill the position vacancy.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Army Reserve Command in Atlanta. An official of that command stated that all proceedings pertaining to the December 1992 unit vacancy promotion board had been destroyed, that there was no available information to support or contradict the applicants claim that the board was influenced by the presence of the declination letter, however, because the letter was from a lieutenant declining promotion to captain, an assumption could be made that board members would have ignored the letter, and that the declination was misfiled.
Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policy and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. Paragraph 3-14 of that regulation prescribes procedures for the convening of standby advisory boards formed to prevent any injustice to an officer who were eligible for promotion but whose records contained a material error when reviewed by the selection board. This paragraph goes on to say, in pertinent part, that an officers records will be referred for standby advisory board action when HQDA determines that the ABCMR requests such a referral. HQDA may find a material error caused an officers nonselection by a promotion board, based on a determination that there is a fair risk that ... another persons adverse document had been filed in an officers OMPF and was seen by the 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 opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The applicant has provided neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that the aforementioned declination letter was included in his records when reviewed by members of the 7 December 1992 unit vacancy board.
2. 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.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711643
On 19 March 1993 the 122 nd ARCOM requested that the 271 st Maintenance Company initiate action to remove the applicant from his ART position based on his reassignment from that unit [loss of dual status with the 271 st ]. The official from USARCOM repeated the information concerning the applicant’s assignment to the 271 st , acceptance and appointment as a CSM, assignment to the 810 th , imminent loss of his civilian position at the 271 st , withdrawal from the CSM program, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212
The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711245
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051729C070420
Counsel also contends that the applicant's non-selection for promotion to the rank of colonel and mandatory retirement was also a result of the ABCMR's failure to consider his 1992 application for promotion reconsideration. The applicant's records were submitted to the 1989 and 1990 Department of the Army RCSB considering officers for promotion to the rank of colonel, but he was not recommended for promotion. Army Regulation 15-185, in effect at the time of the applicant's 1992 application...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079072C070215
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier appeal to have his discharge voided and that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve with entitlement to prior and future Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) payments. She indicated that after her separation from the applicant in December 1999, she was responsible for forwarding the applicant's mail to his new address. VSI annual payments will be discontinued if the member is separated from the Ready Reserve unless the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000143C070208
The applicant was twice considered for promotion to captain but not selected. Army Regulation 135-100 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Army) provides guidance on the eligibility criteria for appointment of Reserve officers. Army Regulation 135-175 states, in pertinent part, that officers in the grade of first lieutenant, captain, or major, who completed their statutory military obligation, will be discharged for failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059775C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he not be placed in the Retired Reserve and instead be reinstated in the Ready Reserve in order to complete 20 years of qualifying service. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show he was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant on 2 January 1981. The applicant provided a copy of AR-PERSCOM Orders C-03-108606, dated 27 March 2001, which shows that he was released from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) due...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019413
The applicant provides: * a memorandum, dated 8 July 2010, from HRC, subject: Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year Letter) * emails, dated 5-20 May 2011, concerning his assignment to the 224th MP Company, Phoenix, AZ * a memorandum for record (MFR), dated 15 October 2011, from Division West, Building, McGregor Range, Fort Bliss, TX * two DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 10 November 2011 * a DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088659C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In a four page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), in effect, that the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) does not have the authority to void his JAGC appointment. In Part IVa, the applicant received 4 ratings of "1", 7 ratings of "2" and 3 ratings of "3". Paragraph 4-27 of Army Regulation 623-105 requires that certain types of Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgement and comment before they...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003039
The applicant requests a retroactive promotion to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and consideration for promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9. f. as noted in the supporting endorsements of the BSM award recommendation, both the Battalion Commander and Special Forces Task Force Commander in Desert Shield/Storm and Group Commander stated that had this information been known at the time the award of the BSM would have been made in 1991. g. he requests the recently-approved BSM be used for...