APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his military records be corrected to reflect selection for promotion to CW4 by the 1994 promotion selection board thus enabling him to be promoted effective 4 October 1995.

APPLICANT STATES:  Incomplete promotion files resulted in his non-selection for promotion in 1994 and by a standby board in 1995.  He states he submitted documents for consideration by the May 1994 CW4 promotion selection board which were not considered by the board, including a copy of his advance course completion certificate, a Meritorious Service Medal for the period 12 September 1988 to 12 September 1992, award of the an Armed Forces Reserve Medal, a 1990 security clearance update, and a memorandum to the president of the board noting that although his January 1994 evaluation report reflected a failed physical fitness test he had retaken the test in February 1994 and passed.  He notes an application to this Board resulted in consideration by a standby promotion board in 1995.  However, he states he was again not selected for promotion because his promotion file was still not complete.

He states he was selected for promotion to CW4 by the 1995 regular scheduled promotion board with a scheduled promotion date of 4 October 1996, nearly 3 months after his mandatory retirement date.  He notes there was little difference between the promotion file seen by the 1995 standby board and the regular board and believes “that had the entire 1994 packet been included for the board’s review [1994 regular board and 1995 standby board] he would have been selected for promotion to CW4 on his normal date...instead of being penalized, through no fault of his own....”

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

He was a member of the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) when he was considered for promotion to CW4 by the May 1994 CW3/CW4 promotion board.  According to an advisory opinion provided by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) the applicant 

was non-selected for promotion by that board and a review of his promotion file revealed that documentation verifying completion of the Aviation Warrant Officer Advanced Course and a copy of his January 1994 were not part of the file seen by the promotion board.

A statement rendered in October 1995 by the former personnel management officer for AGR warrant officers, and submitted as part of the applicant’s application to this board, indicates that he accepted a hand carried promotion packet on behalf of the applicant from another warrant officer in March 1994.  Although the statement does not list the documents contained in the hand carried promotion packet the author noted in his statement that he reviewed the promotion packet and found it to be complete except for an official photograph and that completion of the advance course was noted on the applicant’s Officer Record Brief (ORB).

In August 1994 the applicant submitted an application to this Board noting he was non-selected for promotion to CW4 because his records did not contain a copy of his advance course completion certificate.  Included with his 1994 application to the Board were copies of his DA Form 2b, ORB and course completion certificate.

As a result of his application his file was referred to a standby advisory board.  The PERSCOM advisory opinion notes his records were complete, including his photograph, ORB, January 1994 evaluation report and advanced course completion certificate, when considered by the standby board which convened in April 1995 but he was again non-selected for promotion.  He was selected for promotion to CW4 by the regularly scheduled CW3/CW4 promotion board convened in May 1995.

The applicant’s evaluation report, rendered for the period 
9 January 1993 through 8 January 1994, which was not reviewed by the regular promotion board convened in May 1994 



but was seen by the April 1995 standby board, notes the applicant failed a physical fitness test in November 1993 as a result of failing the 2-mile run event.  The report noted he was “making significant progress towards meeting physical fitness standards” and that he “meets body fat standard of AR 600-9.”  His rater indicated that he “usually exceeded requirements” while his senior rater placed him in the third block.  Prior to this report the applicant had consistently been rated in the top block by his senior raters and “always exceeded requirement.”

Army Regulation 135-155 states that the minimum educational requirement for promotion to CW4 is completion of the Warrant Officer Advance Course.

Army Regulation 135-155 also states that promotion selection boards are furnished copies of an eligible officer’s performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) which includes copies of evaluation reports, commendatory and disciplinary information, ORBs, a photograph taken within the past 3 years, communications to the board president submitted under the provision of paragraph 3-10 of this regulation.

Paragraph 3-10 states that an officer under consideration may write to the selection board inviting attention to any matter of record deemed vital to their consideration.  Any written communication considered by a selection board will become a matter of record, be maintained with the records of the board for 1 year but will not be filed in the individual’s OMPF.  Proper enclosures to a letter to the board include newly acquired diplomas, degrees, professional stature, or information pertaining to civilian occupations.

Standby promotion boards are convened to prevent any injustice to an officer or former officers who were eligible for promotion but whose records, through error, were not submitted to a promotion selection board for consideration, or contained a material error when reviewed by the selection 


board.  Material errors are considered to be record erroneously reflecting that an officer was ineligible for selection for education or other reasons when in fact the officer was eligible for selection when the records were submitted to the original board, one or more of the evaluation reports seen by the board were later deleted from an officer’s OMPF, one or more of the evaluation reports that should have been seen by a board (based on the announced cut-off date) were missing from an officer’s OMPF, one or more existing evaluation report in an officer’s OMPF was modified, another persons adverse document had been filed in an officer’s OMPF and was seen by the board, an adverse document, required to be removed from the OMPF was seen by the board, the Silver star of higher was missing from an officer’s, and an officer’s military or civilian education level was incorrect.  Standby boards review records reconstituted based on the date correct records would have initially been reviewed.  In the applicant’s case his April 1995 standby board would have reviewed records reconstituted as of the May 1994 board which had originally seen the incomplete record.

A statistical review of the 1994 CW4 promotion selection rate noted that 32 AGR warrant officers were considered for promotion and 22 selected (69 percent).  The 1995 selection board statistics revealed that 82 AGR warrant officers were considered for promotion to CW4 and 72, or 88 percent were selected.

The opinion rendered by the PERSCOM (COPY ATTACHED) recommended the applicant’s request be denied.

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 evidence confirms the applicant’s file reviewed by the 1994 regularly scheduled CW4 promotion did not contain documentation confirming completion of the Warrant Officer Advance Course, an immediate disqualifier for promotion, or a copy of his January 1994 evaluation report.

2.  Both omissions were a basis for promotion reconsideration by a standby board which was accomplished in April 1995.

3.  While the specific reasons an individual is not selected for promotion are known only to the promotion board members it is possible that the applicant’s January 1994 evaluation report played a role in the applicant’s non-selection.  Although he may have passed a make-up test in February 1994, after the end date of the evaluation report, the fact remains he had a failed physical fitness test on record.  Additionally, a rating that he “usually exceeded requirements” and placement in the three block by his senior rater was a significant departure from his previously outstanding performance reports.

4.  The absence of an updated security clearance, Meritorious Service Medal, and Armed Forces Reserve Medal, none of which form the basis for promotion reconsideration, likely play little significance in the applicant’s non-selection for promotion.

5.  The selection of the applicant for promotion to CW4 by the 1995 regular scheduled promotion board may have been a reflection of the significantly increased selection rate, a more favorable subsequent evaluation report, or merely the passage of time since the physical fitness test.

6.  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.

7.  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