| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. W. E. Schnupp | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis W. Barbee, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be promoted to the grade of colonel with a date of rank of 22 May 1992; that his retirement order be amended to reflect that he retired in the grade of colonel and that his retired pay be based on that grade.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was illegally discriminated against based on his race, sex, religion and age. He was selected for promotion to USAR colonel in August 1991 with a promotion eligibility date of 20 May 1992, provided that he was in a valid USAR Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) colonel position at that time. He contends that between the time of his selection for promotion and his retirement on 31 August 1995, he was discriminated against for selection for a valid AGR colonel position by the Chief, Army Reserve (CAR), and the officers who comprise the lieutenant colonel (LTC) promotable/colonel Order of Merit Boards which convened in 1992, 1993 1994 and 1995. He believes that this discrimination was based on his religion, age, race and sex.
He synopsizes the AGR officer promotion process as follows: After selection for promotion, AGR LTC (P) must be in a valid colonel position in order to be promoted. An order of merit list (OML) is developed by an Order of Merit Board after the results of each promotion board has been released. Since this is done after each promotion board, the current OML is reordered which results in allowing individuals much junior in grade being selected for colonel positions, and promoted immediately upon their promotion eligibility date based strictly on their race, sex, age, and religion. Those being discriminated against never get to the top of the list. He assert that minorities and females are selected for colonel positions in a far greater percentage than they are represented in the general or AGR population. He says that his “class” represents about 1.5 percent of the general US population but do not enjoy the designation of minority status. Who the individual currently works for as well as who the individual knows and is “in tight with” also is a major factor in who is selected for colonel positions.
He further contends that he should have been allowed to participate in his chosen profession without fear of illegal discrimination. He should have been placed in a colonels position based on his talents, knowledge and experience; not based on his race, sex, religion or age. Our military leaders should not be selected based on who they know or their ethnic background. The CAR should not be allowed to continue the illegal cover-up of the promotion selection process by keeping board results and lists secret.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He is a white, male, born in 1946 whose stated religious preference is Jewish. He was placed on the USAR retired list effective 1 September 1995 in the grade of lieutenant colonel after completing over 20 years of active service.
The applicant entered on active duty in the AGR program on 30 September 1983. He was subsequently selected for promotion to colonel but was not promoted to that grade.
Army Regulation 140-30, Active Duty in Support of the US Army Reserve and Active Guard Reserve Management Program, provides that officers in AGR status may be selected for promotion regardless of attachment but will not be promoted unless the officer is presently in a position requiring a higher grade and has reached his or her promotion eligibility date.
Chapter 3 of the same regulation provides that the CAR will convene, prescribe the composition of and issue instructions for any board proceeding deemed necessary for the proper management of the AGR force to include assignment advising boards.
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. The Applicant contends that the CAR selection process for assignment of AGR LTC promotable officers is flawed and as a result, he was discriminated against on the basis of his religion, age, race and sex by not having been placed in a colonel level assignment. While he provides a lengthy description of the CAR’s order of merit board process, he provides no evidence to show how that process may have discriminated against him on the basis of religion, age, race or sex.
2. Army regulations charge the CAR with responsibility for conducting boards necessary for the proper management of the AGR force. In the absence of probative evidence or a convincing argument from the applicant as to how the colonel assignment process wronged him, there are no grounds to favorably consider his request.
3. 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 this requirement.
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
JHL_____ CMF____ RVO____ DENY APPLICATION
W. E. Schnupp
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026624
It is in the interest of justice to consider this case because: * It involves long-term institutional discrimination * It requires promotion and assignment data and statistics for proof * The National Guard Bureau (NGB) was often unresponsive to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and misdirected and/or delayed replies for many months * Key witness testimony was delayed * Counsel was delayed due to his own disability * The State Senator has concerns about discrimination within the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056808C070420
In January 1997, when the applicant was "conditionally selected" and ranked # 1 on the Order of Merit List (OML) for engineer duty, regulations required his "accompanying" waiver request be immediately forwarded for endorsement, recommendation, and DCSPER approval. Paragraph 3-3a(3) of the regulation states that the CAR has the responsibility to provide a recommendation for active duty through the appropriate selection process. The FTSMD advisory opinion further states that the accession...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009225C070206
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion. The Officer Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 noted that the EO language in the FY02 LTC Army promotion selection board was not ruled unconstitutional. Prior to 2000, selection boards were required to conduct a review of files for the effects of past discrimination in any case in which the selection rate for a minority or gender group was less than the selection rate for all officers in the promotions zone...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023512
The Court of Federal Claims on remand to the ABCMR asked it to re-examine four issues: * whether the senior raters block check was inconsistent with his comments * whether the OER should have been handled as a referred evaluation * whether the applicant was denied entry into the AGR program due to waiver requirements * whether the applicants case could be distinguished from another case in which another applicants records were corrected to show he entered the AGR program based on the need...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018083C070206
Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant was an active duty CPT in the USAR when he submitted an application for the AGR Program in March 1997, along with necessary waivers with his application. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was ordered to active duty in the AGR Program or that he completed and signed a statement that he would serve in a captain position for at least 3 years. The evidence of record also shows that the representative of the FTSMD, Accessions...
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 | CY2015 | 20150006171
* There is no appeal process, waivers, or redress for AGR officers selected for REFRAD who are eligible for consideration by the REFRAD board; however, officers selected by the board and were later found to have been ineligible for consideration may have their REFRAD selection nullified with approval of CAR of his representative 8. He provides a FAQs printout, updated on 15 April 2014 that answers questions related to: * Officer population to be considered by the REFRAD board * Selection...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001473
At the time of his promotion to LTC, his effective date was 11 December 2011, with a DOR of 10 February 2005. The applicant went before the 2007 APL LTC Board and was DA selected for promotion; however, due to control grades for AGR LTC's he was not promoted until December 2011. Officers selected by an SSB are eligible for the same date of rank that they would have received by the original board in which the error occurred.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016564
Counsel requests: * the applicant be promoted to colonel (COL) in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) in the position he would have been absent the discrimination due to his race and national origin * payment of all back pay for the time he was unable to serve at the appropriate level * removal from his records of all negative reviews that were a result of the racism of his senior rater * removal from his records of all documents related to being passed over for promotion * amendment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006408C070206
The applicant states, in a 20-page appeal, in effect, that the investigation conducted in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 was flawed and the substantiation of the findings of that report were flawed as well and resulted in an unjust characterization of his performance by his rater and SR in the contested report, as well as administrative errors. The rater gave the applicant maximum ratings and in Part V, under Performance and Potential Evaluation, he made comments to the...