Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606206C070209
Original file (9606206C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Promotion to the rank of brigadier general (BG) with an appropriate assignment in that rank or that he be retired in the rank of BG.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was unjustly denied a promotion to the rank of BG when he was fully qualified and deserving of the promotion.  He further states that his nonselection was based on the damaging, inaccurate, and false information sent to the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) requiring him (the applicant) to show cause why he should be retained in the USAR.  He goes on to state that he was found not guilty of all of the charges against him, however, during the time he was flagged for the show cause proceedings, he missed out on valuable training, assignments, and possible promotion opportunities.  Therefore, he desires the Board to make him whole again.  In support of his application he submits selected documents from his records as well as selected documents from the involuntary separation (show cause) proceedings. 

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

The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR in the pay grade of E-8 on 20 March 1973 for the purpose of accepting a commission as a captain in the USAR.

The Army Reserve Command sent the applicant a notification of eligibility for retired pay (20-year letter) at age 60 on 21 September 1978.  He was serving in the rank of major at the time.

He continued to serve in the USAR and was promoted to the rank of colonel on 13 September 1989.

In September 1990, while the applicant’s records were being reviewed by the USAR Officer Professional Development Education Selection Board, it was discovered that the applicant’s records indicated that he had received a doctorate (Ph.D.) in 1976 from an institution that was not accredited and amounted to being no more than a diploma mill.  At the time the diploma was issued to the applicant the institution was located in South Dakota.  However, at the time the board made its discovery, the institution was in Louisiana and operating under a different name.   Consequently, the board president recommended to the OCAR that the applicant be required to show cause why he should be retained in the USAR in the rank of colonel.

On 15 April 1991 the applicant was notified that elimination action was being initiated against him for intentional omission or misstatement of facts in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation and conduct unbecoming an officer.  The applicant acknowledged the notification and elected to appear before a board of officers with representation by military counsel.  The applicant was notified on 23 February 1992 that the board of officers would be convened on 11 April 1992.  The findings and recommendations of the board are not contained in the available records.  However, on 23 June 1992 the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) informed the applicant that the findings and recommendations of the board were approved and that he would be retained in the USAR.

On 27 October 1994 the applicant was released from the USAR Control Group (Individual Management Augmentee) and transferred to the Retired Reserve based on his completion of the maximum authorized years of service.

A review of the Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education published by the American Council on Education which serves as the standard by which institutions qualify as acceptable institutions to meet the standards of the Department, does not contain the institution claimed by the applicant to have issued him a doctorate degree in Sociology. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1.  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.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he may have missed promotion opportunities while he was flagged is without merit.  The suspension of favorable personnel actions does not preclude promotion consideration, it simply precludes an individual from being promoted until the suspension is lifted favorably.  Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his contention.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was not selected for promotion to the rank of BG because of inaccurate and false information provided to the OCAR is pure speculation on the applicant’s part.  It is a well known fact that promotion selection boards do not reveal their reasons for selection or nonselection.

4.  Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence of record bears out that the applicant did not have a Ph.D. from an accredited university as required by applicable regulations, he was afforded due process by a show cause board and allowed to remain active in the USAR until he was transferred to the Retired Reserve.  There is no evidence that any of the applicant’s rights were violated nor does there appear to be any evidence of error or injustice 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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015308

    Original file (20060015308.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His records were sent to the July 1993 Promotion Board for promotion to the rank of BG/O-7. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 15 September 1996, the date he was transferred to the Retired Reserve. The applicant alleges to have been considered and not selected for promotion to BG by the 1993 General Officer Selection Promotion Board; however, he provided no documentary evidence to support his allegation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008985C070208

    Original file (20040008985C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 October 1994, the applicant submitted an application to this Board requesting that his records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the rank of captain with entitlement to all back pay; that he be furnished a diploma for the successful completion of AGOBC 13-88; and that his Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) be corrected to show that he achieved course standards. However, the decision made by this Board on 18 June 1997 clearly states "if he is selected for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012031

    Original file (20090012031.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also requests this SSB review his promotion file as it was prepared by the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR), General Officer Management Office (GOMO) for presentation to the 2005 General Officer Assignment Advisory Board (GOAAB), the most recent board that did not consider him due to his pending physical evaluation board (PEB) appeal. The applicant states that he was notified by the 12 September 2003 non-duty related PEB that he was medically unfit to perform his duties as a U.S....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011719

    Original file (20110011719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    To that end, he has not provided a copy of the letter or any documentation requesting transfer to the IRR at the time of his retirement. d. Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers), paragraph 7-3.1(b) states "an officer (other than a commissioned warrant officer) or enlisted Soldier who has accrued 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay is required to attain 50 points annually to be retained in an active status in the Selected Reserve, IRR, or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070712C070402

    Original file (2002070712C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, letter Subject: Submission of Voluntary Retirement, dated 1 March 2000; retirement orders, dated 28 August 2000; request to rescind retirement actions and for extension on AFS with chain of command endorsements, dated 6 September 2000; separation document (DD Form 214), dated 31 January 2001; Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, letter...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014753

    Original file (20130014753.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states she was not selected for promotion to CPT with no reason given. She states that an error occurred in her board file whereby her BSN was not filed prior to the convene date of the promotion selection board. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) states promotion consideration or reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error which existed in the record at...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711245

    Original file (9711245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 20110021577

    Original file (20110021577.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason given was that the records review did not indicate he had completed the required civilian and/or military education by the day before the date the board convened. e. The opinion further indicated the applicant may be eligible for a promotion reconsideration board because he provided evidence indicating he was educationally qualified at the time he was considered by the FY 2010 Captain APL promotion board. He was also not selected for promotion to captain by this board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076641C070215

    Original file (2002076641C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    It indicated, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for retired pay, an individual need not have a military status at the time of application for retired pay, but must have (1) attained age 60; (2) completed a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service; and, (3) served the last 8-years of his or her qualifying service as a Reserve Component soldier. He was allowed two additional years to obtain one additional year of qualifying service until his transfer to the Retired Reserve effective 24...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005532

    Original file (20150005532.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On, 24 December 2014, he appealed to the ABCMR for reconsideration of his prior request for promotion to the rank of COL effective 21 December 2012 with pay and allowances or reconsideration of his case by an SSB and correction of the last three of the four contested OER's (OERs 2, 3, and 4) to reflect he served under dual supervision and/or removal of those OERs. The applicant provides: a. The applicant maintains that his rater and senior raters failed to show he served in dual supervised...