| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison . | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion reconsideration to major.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that her civilian and military education and two officer evaluation reports (OER’s) were missing from her records when they were reviewed by the 1997 Reserve Major Promotion Board. She submits copies of her civilian education degrees, military education completion certificates, a letter of recommendation for promotion, her personnel qualification record and OER’s ending 31 August 1997 and 31 July 2000 in support of her application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She was appointed in the Reserve as a second lieutenant effective 12 May 1984. She was promoted to first lieutenant effective 2 February 1987 and to captain effective 1 February 1991.
Based on the required 7 years time in grade her promotion eligibility date (PED) for major was 31 January 1998.
She was considered and not selected for promotion to major by the 1997 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) that convened on 11 March and adjourned on 11 April 1997. The boards did not divulge the reason(s) except that it was not for lack of military education.
She was also considered but not selected by the 1998 RCSB, which convened from 24 March 1998 to 29 April 1998.
Her records did not contain material error when considered by the 1997 and 1998 selection boards.
Current Reserve promotion policy specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records 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 non-selection 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 non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.
This policy further specifies that individuals will receive mandatory promotion consideration prior to their PED's so that, if selected, they may be promoted on their future PED.
The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotion, Total Army Personnel Command, expressed the opinion that the applicant does not have a basis for consideration by an SSB. The applicant’s highest civilian education of her Master Degree, certificate for completion of the Combined Arms and Service Staff School and advanced course certificate were viewed by the 1997 RCSB on microfiche or as hard copy documents. The OER’s ending 8 August 1997 and
31 July 2000 were after the selection board; therefore, they were ineligible for consideration by the board. The other documents the applicant submitted are not pertinent documents that would be considered a basis for special board consideration. In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.
The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for rebuttal on 7 May 2001. She did not respond.
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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration to major. She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.
2. Her contention that her civilian and military education were not reviewed by the 1997 RCSB has been noted by the board; however, her highest level of civilian and military education were reviewed by the selection boards. Her contention that OER’s for the periods ending 8 August 1997 and 31 July 2000 were not viewed by the 1997 RCSB has also been noted; however, these OER’s were rendered on the applicant after the adjourning date of the boards and were ineligible for consideration and are not a basis for reconsideration by an SSB. Her contentions concerning other documentation also does not show material error requiring promotion reconsideration.
3. Her records were complete and without material error when reviewed by the 1997 and 1998 RCSB’s and she has not shown otherwise.
4. The Board further notes that as shown in this case, promotion is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of an RCSB determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade. Promotion and retention is keenly competitive, and many officers will not be selected.
5. Implicit in the Army's promotion system is the universally accepted and frequently discussed principle that officers have a responsibility for their own careers. The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications. Given that the applicant became a captain in 1991 and that she had to be considered by an RCSB so that, if selected, she could be promoted by the time she had served
7 years in grade, the applicant knew, or should have known, that she would be considered by an RCSB as early as 1997 and that she needed to insure, well in advance, that her record would present her career and qualifications to that board in the best possible light.
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 this 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
_wtm____ _jtm___ __aao___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051960 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010731 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054867C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 1997 and 1998 RCSB’s. His records were completed and without material error and included all pertinent documents when reviewed by the 1997 and 1998 promotion selection boards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054328C070420
Her records were subsequently submitted to the 1997 LTC promotion board and she was selected for promotion. The policy further provides that in order to be qualified for promotion to LTC an individual must have completed 7 years of TIG as a major and 50 percent of the CGSOC on or before the convening date of the respective promotion board. Based on the officer’s DOR for major she should have been considered for promotion by the 1996 promotion board.
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 | CY2006 | AR20060012803C071029
In her rebuttal, the applicant states that the CGSOC is not a requirement for promotion to lieutenant colonel for Army nurses and that she only wanted to attend the CGSOC to make herself more competitive for promotion. There were four OERs in the applicant’s records at the time that she was considered for promotion in May 2003 which were not corrected until June 2006. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060045C070421
He also states that the applicant was in the zone of consideration by the 1996 RCSB with a PED of 10 September 1996 (sic), based on the 12 years TCS requirement. The table states an officer will be promoted on the date he meets the TIG in grade and TCS requirements provided he is recommended for promotion by the selection board that considered him for promotion. If not selected for promotion by the SSB he should be issued a corrected promotion order with a DOR of 10 September 1996 (sic)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091750C070212
The applicant states that he was not provided due process because the majority of his official military personnel file (OMPF) was not available for review by the promotion selection boards and the special selection boards (SSB's). Based upon review of the applicant’s records by the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), it was determined that the applicant’s OMPF contained material error when he was considered and not selected for promotion to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011579
The evidence shows the applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel with a promotion effective date and date of rank of 30 August 1999. Based on the established zone of consideration for the 2002 RCSB and the applicant's date of rank for lieutenant colonel, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to colonel by that board. He was considered and selected for promotion to colonel by a SSB that convened on 4 August 2006.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009418
The applicant provides: * Promotion consideration memorandum, dated 2 November 2004 * HRC Officer Promotion Memorandum, dated 19 April 2012 * Second Non-selection Memorandum, dated 12 April 1999 * Reassignment to the Retired Reserve orders, dated 21 May 1999 * Election of Option statement, dated 1 June 1999 * Extract of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) * Extract of AR 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083424C070212
On 12 November the 2001 RCSB convened and again, the applicant was found to be not qualified for promotion based on lack of the required civilian education, a BA degree As a result of his second nonselection for promotion to the rank of captain, he was separated from the Oregon Army National Guard on 25 September 2002. Public Law 105-261, Section 516 granted authority for a temporary waiver of a BA degree requirement for promotion to captain for certain Army Reserve officers. However, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061088C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. He was considered and not selected for promotion to colonel by the 1997, 1998 and 1999 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s). The promotion boards do not divulge the proceedings or reasons for non-selection, and this Board cannot determine why he was not selected for promotion.