| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. David H. Keller | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, consideration for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel by a second promotion standby advisory board.
APPLICANT STATES: That with the assistance of his senator, he was assured by the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR), that he had a basis for reconsideration since an officer evaluation report (OER) was missing from his file when not recommended for promotion in 1993. Applicant states that OCAR later decided not to refer his file to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for promotion reconsideration, and he believes that they erred in their decision. He states that since promotion boards do not divulge their reasons for promotion nonselection, he believes that the missing OER could very well have been a reason for his nonselection. That he had appealed the OER in question and won.
In support of his request, the applicant submits an April 1996 letter from OCAR advising him to apply to this Board for promotion reconsideration; an April 1994 Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) reply to his senator outlining the procedures for requesting promotion reconsideration; a May 1994 PERSCOM letter informing the applicant of the same; and a December 1994 letter from the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) informing the applicant that his OER appeal had been granted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That with prior enlisted service, he was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant, Quartermaster Corps, on 16 August 1974. He was promoted to major effective 14 December 1987.
An 8 December 1992 letter from ARPERCEN notified the applicant that he was eligible for retired pay at age 60. His date of birth is 28 June 1942.
On 28 February 1995 the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve based on his nonselection for promotion to the next higher grade.
On 9 November 1998 the Board was advised (COPY ATTACHED) by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that the applicant was considered but not recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1993 and 1994 Reserve Components Selection Boards. When the 1993 board considered his file, an OER ending 5 June 1993 was missing. This missing report was his sole basis for reconsideration by a promotion standby advisory board. However, prior to the convening of the advisory board, he successfully appealed the OER and it was removed from his file. Since the OER ending 5 June 1993 no longer existed, his basis for advisory board consideration no longer existed, as there had been no material change to the 1993 file.
The Board was further advised that the subject OER was in the file that was considered by the 1994 selection board. Based on the applicant’s appeal, the report was removed from the file and he was reconsidered for promotion under 1994 criteria by the advisory board that adjourned on 15 August 1995. The applicant was again not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel. He has not provided any new information which would constitute a basis for reconsideration. Disapproval of the applicant’s request was recommended.
The applicant was given an opportunity to rebut the foregoing advisory opinion. In his rebuttal he contends that the 1993 and 1994 promotion boards both contained a basis which warranted “re-look” boards, but in essence he was only reconsidered one time and thereby believes he deserves a second “re-look” board which will hopefully contain no reason for nonselection. He believes that both of the regular promotion boards were presented with reason to not select him for promotion through no fault of his own.
Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration. Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s nonselection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion. The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for nonselection, except where an individual is not qualified due to noncompletion of required military schooling.
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, it is concluded:
1. Although the OER ending 5 June 1993 was missing from the applicant’s file for the 1993 promotion selection board, it is apparent to this Board that the report was unfavorable, otherwise the applicant would not have appealed to have it removed. Therefore, it would not have been favorable to the applicant if the OER was filed, and it is doubtful that he would have been thus selected.
2. The applicant was reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1994 Standby Advisory Board and was not selected for promotion. His record was complete and all critical elements were present when it was viewed by that board.
3. The applicant has not provided any new information which would constitute a basis for reconsideration.
4. The foregoing is supported by the advisory opinion provided by PERSCOM. Accordingly, 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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
| CASE ID | AC97-11245/AR1999015482 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 19990526 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | 131.01 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711722
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to void his discharge and to show he was selected and promoted to major. Included with his application are memorandums from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) showing the reason he was not selected was based on two evaluation reports showing “Do Not Promote”, and also based on the lack of a baccalaureate degree. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089450C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That the Warrant Officer Branch at the U.S. Reserve Army Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) denied him the opportunity to attend the Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) from 18 March 2002 to 12 April 2002 because he was "inappropriately" listed on the Active Retired List. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509193C070209
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 applicants 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 | CY1997 | 1997001072
COUNSEL CONTENDS : That the applicant’s nonselection for continuation on active duty in the AGR Program by the Calendar Year (CY) 1991 AGR Continuation board was legally and materially in error and unjust in that the applicant was erroneously considered by that board; that that board was conducted in violation of governing regulation, since the membership did not include, to the extent possible, representation from the AGR Program and that he should have been continued on active duty without...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087572C070212
In this reply, he was advised that he had been nonselected for promotion because he had not met the civilian education requirement, a baccalaureate degree, and in addition, two missing officer evaluation reports (OERs) (OERs with ending dates of 31 May 1999 and 7 January 2000) were not seen by the boards. The applicant was considered for promotion by the 2000 and 2001 DA Reserve Components Major, Selection Board, and was not selected based on his not having completed the required civilian...
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 | 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 | CY1997 | 9711786
On 18 July 1995, his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension shows his date of entry on current enlistment was 8 November 1989 for a 6 year period.) In an opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notes that, based on the absence of the NCO-ER for ending period October 1991, the applicant’s records will be made available for consideration by the May 1998 Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under the 1993 criteria. The applicant was not granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069529C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his date of rank be changed to an earlier effective date. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that several Officer Evaluation Reports (OERS) and his record of civilian education were not a part of his record at the time it was reviewed for the 1994 and 1995 promotion boards for captain. The Board concurs with the advisory opinion that all but one of the OERs that the applicant requested be considered should not have been available to the 1994 promotion board and that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706108C070209
It further opined that Army Regulation 135-155 requires commissioned officers to complete their educational requirements no later than the date a selection board convenes. A staff member of the Board contacted officials at the Office of Reserve Components Promotions to request further clarification regarding whether or not the applicant had in fact been informed that she was exempt from the requirement to complete CAS III for promotion to the rank of major. Although the Board finds that...