| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) under the criteria of the fiscal year 1995 (FY 95) and, if necessary, subsequent Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC) LTC promotion boards. If he is selected for promotion, that his date of rank and back pay be adjusted accordingly. In the event the processing of this case continues beyond his required retirement date of 1 August 2001, that his retired rank be amended to LTC.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that it was the equal opportunity instructions given to the FY 95 and subsequent boards that caused him to be non-selected.
The Army agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by two LTC judge advocates who contested their non-selection for colonel by selection boards that had been given the same, or substantially the same, instructions as given to the JAGC LTC boards. It would be unjust to now deny him the relief granted those two officers.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was commissioned in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in July 1981. He was promoted to major on 1 February 1990. He was first considered for promotion to LTC by the FY 95 LTC JAGC Promotion Selection Board. He was subsequently considered and non-selected for promotion by the FY 96, FY 97, FY 98, and FY 99 LTC JAGC Promotion Selection Boards.
The applicant’s Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) contain commendable to highly commendable comments but show for the most part that his senior raters rated him as a center-of-mass or dual center-of-mass officer.
OER Ending Period
SR Block Rating (* indicates applicant’s rating)
9 February 1982
0/0/*1/0/0/0/0/0/0
9 February 1983
0/1/*3/0/0/0/0/0/0
The above two OERs also contain ratings of “usually exceeded requirements” and “promote with contemporaries.”
16 November 1983
0/*1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
31 May 1984
36/*43/26/0/0/0/0/0/0
17 September 1984
3/*4/8/2/0/0/0/0/0
24 June 1985
9/*13/23/2/0/0/0/0/0
20 October 1985
*10/16/29/6/0/1/0/0/0
12 July 1986
*14/20/29/6/0/1/0/0/0
12 July 1987
*17/22/29/6/0/1/0/0/0
19 January 1988
*21/24/29/6/0/1/0/0/0
29 June 1988
*23/25/29/6/0/1/0/0/0
The applicant had the same senior rater for the above five OERs.
19 May 1990
*2/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
19 May 1991
*3/2/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
19 May 1992
*3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
19 May1993
*10/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
17 January 1994
*1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
14 July 1994
*10/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
26 May 1995
*13/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0 (he met the body fat standards)
26 May 1996
*9/4/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
9 December 1996
*41/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
3 August 1997
*37/16/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
30 September 1998
above center of mass
30 September 1999
above center of mass (he met body fat standards)
30 June 2000
above center of mass (he met body fat standards)
In 1999, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U. S. Army agreed to settle a lawsuit by two active duty JAGC lieutenant colonels who claimed that the affirmative action portion of instructions used by the colonel’s promotion board violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The civil action was dismissed pursuant to those officers being reconsidered for promotion to colonel through an SSB representing the FY 97, FY 97 (August), and FY 99 Colonel JAGC Promotion Selection Board. The Board learned that by “FY 99” the Court meant the FY 98 promotion board (convened and recessed in August 1998 for promotions to be made in FY 99).
On 5 June 2000, the U. S. Court of Federal Claims established, in Christian v. United States (a case concerning an officer selected by a SERB for early retirement), that the Equal Opportunity instructions used by the SERB were unconstitutional. On 8 February 2001, that Court ruled that the results of that board are void. However, the Government’s position remains that the instructions are legal; the ruling is not final and not yet subject to appeal by the Government; and the ruling is controlling only in that litigation.
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 some previous cases, the Board granted the applicants promotion reconsideration based upon the1999 U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia case and reasons of equity. The Court settlement involved active duty JAGC lieutenant colonels non-selected for promotion to colonel; the Board’s cases involved active duty JAGC lieutenant colonels non-selected for promotion to colonel by all or some of the same promotion boards that non-selected the individuals involved in the settlement.
2. In this case, the Board concludes that the same equity considerations do not apply. The applicant is a major who was non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel so he was not considered by the same boards that considered the individuals in the U. S. District Court case. Although a Senior Judge of the U. S. Court of Federal Claims has held the challenged equal opportunity board instructions unconstitutional in the SERB case, it is noted his decision operates only as the law of that particular case.
3. The Board notes that the applicant’s records, as evidenced by his OER history, do not appear to be so meritorious as to convince the Board that the only reason he was non-selected for promotion was due to the equal opportunity instructions even if it were assumed those instructions were legally defective. The Board notes that the applicant had a group of OERs between October 1985 and January 1988 where he was rated as above center of mass. However, it appears that his senior rater during that period was attempting to bring his rating profile to where he had a dual 1 and 2 block center of mass. He was not rated as above center of mass again until after he had been non-selected for promotion several times.
4. There is no indication that the applicant’s non-selection to LTC was unjust or inequitable. There is no evidence of record that shows that his non-selection was contrary to law. Without being able to review all the records, the Board cannot determine why he was not selected for promotion. Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the officers who were recommended for promotion to LTC, JAGC were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified.
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
__jns___ __le____ __cjp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052780 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010329 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.10 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059781C070421
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant is a Medical Service Corps lieutenant colonel who was non-selected for promotion to colonel so he was not considered by the same boards that considered the individuals in the U. S. District Court case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010394C070208
He learned of the actions directed by the Court, and specifically the Court determination that the instructions used were unconstitutional, in November 2004 when a friend electronically mailed a Washington Post article that discussed the issues involved. In accordance with paragraph 5 of this message, applications for special selection boards received within one year of the date of the message "may be based on original board results that were released within 6 years of the application." It...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061164C070421
Based on this case, the Board held that as a matter of equity it would be in the interest of justice to grant the same relief to two later applicants. In 1999, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U. S. Army agreed to settle a lawsuit by two JAGC lieutenant colonels who claimed that the affirmative action portion of instructions used by the colonel’s promotion board violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009679C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Major, O-4 when he was on active duty. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 628 states the Secretary of a military department may correct a person's military records in accordance with a recommendation by a special selection board. In accordance with paragraph 5 of this message, applications for special selection boards received within one year of the date of the message "may be based on original board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063912C070421
Other than his contention, the applicant has provided no evidence that the promotion selection board failed to perform its duties of selecting the best qualified officers for promotion regardless of race, gender or national origin. It does not appear to the Board that there was a material error in his records as they were considered by the FY 99 promotion board. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by submitting the applicant’s records to a duly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102694C070208
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) states that an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB for a number of reasons, including when the promotion selection board did not see an official photograph. If for some reason they cannot do so (if the officer being considered by the SSB is in the population being considered by the scheduled, regular board or if any of the members sat on the original board), they will contact the appropriate office (OTJAG, if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028320
With respect to his promotion, the applicant states in a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Army: * Reserve officers were discriminated against since it was the promotion boards' prior determination (a quota system) that all promotions would go to Regular Army (RA) officers and minorities * his non-selection for promotion to COL is a grave injustice * promotion boards were in violation of equal protection and due process rights of persons considered for promotion under the Fifth...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052779C070420
The applicant states, in effect, error of improper instructions to the promotion boards and an illegible microfiche presented to the boards seriously prejudiced him, resulting in material unfairness and denied rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. He further states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should grant relief in the form of reconsideration for promotion to COL by SSB’s, and rewriting paragraph G-4(3) in the instructions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003960C070208
The applicant was advised that the guidance also imposed a time limit on requests for promotion reconsideration based on the pre-September 1999 Equal Opportunity promotion instructions. Applications for special boards received within one year of the date of the message may be based on original board results that were released within 6 years of the application. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by submitting...
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...