| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas F. Baxter | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests promotion reconsideration to chief warrant officer four (CW4) by a special selection board under 1995 criteria.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was educationally qualified and the subject educational requirements were satisfied at the time of his promotion eligibility date of 14 May 1995. He submits a copy of his entire promotion packet submitted to the Commander, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) in March 2000 in support of his request.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was appointed in the Reserve as a warrant officer one effective 14 May 1980 with prior enlisted service.
5. He was promoted to CW2 effective 14 May 1983 and to CW3 effective 14 May 1989.
6. Based on the required 6 years time in grade, his promotion eligibility date for CW4 was 14 May 1995.
7. His Personnel Qualification Record shows he completed the Warrant Officer Senior Course (WOSC) in 1987.
8. He was erroneously not considered for promotion to CW4 by the 1994 through 1999 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s).
9. He was considered and not selected for promotion to CW4 by the 2000 RCSB. He was determined not qualified for promotion based on the lack of the required military education (sic).
10. His records did not show the date he completed the WOSC when reviewed by the selection board.
11. Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. This regulation 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.
12. The regulation also 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.
13. Army Regulation 135-155 also indicates that effective in 1994 completion of any WOSC is required for promotion to CW4.
14. The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that the applicant’s file when reviewed by the 2000 RCSB, did not include verification of completion of the required military education. Therefore, he was not selected for promotion. The certificate for completion of the WOSC was in the applicant’s file when the selection board viewed it. The certificate does not have a completion date on it; therefore, it was not accepted as verification of completion of the course. The applicant was academically relieved from the Property Accounting Technician Senior Warrant Officer Training Course in 1992, and has not reapplied and completed the course as of 22 March 2001. Therefore, he does not have a basis for special board consideration. If the applicant provides a dated certificate or a Service School Academic Evaluation Report for completion of either course his request will be reevaluated for possible special board consideration. In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be disapproved.
15. The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 16 April 2001. In his rebuttal dated 11 May 2001, the applicant states that it is through no fault of his own that the school did not date documents and the promotion board must have accepted the certificates of fellow class members or they would not have been promoted. He submits a letter of support verifying that during the period September 1985 through July 1992 many completion certificates issued by the 5034th USAR School had missing dates and it was not until Desert Storm that this action was brought under control.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was erroneously not considered for promotion to CW4 by appropriate RCSB’s. The 1994 RCSB should have considered him so that he could have been promoted on 14 May 1995, his PED. The Board notes that the applicant’s records, in accordance with policy, were not reviewed one year prior to his PED or subsequent years.
2. Notwithstanding the opinion received in this case, it is also noted that while the WOSC completion certificate is not dated, the applicant’s records show he completed the WOSC in 1987 and is educationally qualified for promotion to CW4. It is further noted that his non-selection by the 2000 promotion board is erroneous and his name should be deleted from the results of that board.
3. The Board concludes that the applicant’s records show he was educationally qualified for promotion to CW4 and eligible for promotion reconsideration by an SSB under 1994 and, if necessary, under 1995 through 2000 criteria. His records do not show he was academically relieved from the Property Accounting Technician Senior Warrant Officer Training course; however, this does not disqualify him from promotion consideration or promotion. The Board notes here that he was qualified for promotion based on his completion of the WOSC in 1987.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned completed the WOSC in 1987, and by submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board(s).
2. That if selected, his records be further corrected by showing he was promoted to the next higher grade on his date of eligibility therefor, as determined by appropriate Departmental officials using the criteria cited, provided he was otherwise qualified and met all other prerequisites for promotion.
3. That if not selected, the applicant be so notified.
BOARD VOTE:
_tfb____ _jtm____ _jh_____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
June Hajjar
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001053396 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010816 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064415C070421
The regulation also specifies that completion of the WOAC is required for promotion to CW4, no later than the convening date the appropriate selection board. In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes the applicant’s records should be corrected to show she completed the required military education on 20 April 2001, prior to the convening date of the 2001 RCSB and she is entitled to the STAB. The Board further notes that based on the applicant's PED and the 2001 and 2002 RCSB convening...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057122C070420
Current 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. The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that based on the 6 years time in grade requirement, the applicant was in zone for promotion consideration by the 1991 through 2001 RCSB’s. The Board notes that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068123C070402
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015976
He requested and received a correction to his military records and in September 2003 was promoted to CW3 with a date of rank of 8 March 1998. When he was not promoted to CW4 on 8 March 2004, he inquired and was told that he needed to complete the WOSC to be eligible for promotion consideration. However, the NGB denied his request and so informed the applicant that he was required to complete this course of study prior to being promoted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060016760C071029
The available records indicate that the applicant's completed his education requirement on 18 April 2006. While it is the applicant's responsibility to complete his promotion educational requirement in a timely manner and to ensure that this records are complete at the time of promotion consideration, the applicant's contention that his Certificate of Training for the successful completion of the AWOAC was not in his file at the time that he was considered for promotion to CW4 is not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073057C070403
However, in this case, the applicant could not be selected based on the fact his 2000 record did not reflect completion of the required military education requirements (WOAC) by the convene date of the board. The applicant submitted an Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149) requesting a STAB due to a Code 11, OER missing from his 2001 file. However, pertinent regulations do not specify that an OER Code 11, Promotion Report is required for subsequent promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055753C070420
The applicant states, in effect, that his record was incomplete when it was considered by the 1994 and 1995 Reserve Component, Selection Boards (RCSB) as it did not show completion of either his civilian or military education military education requirements. These documents were not previously available to the Board and constitute new evidence that requires Board review. In their opinion it was stated that if the applicant provided verification of his education, he could request a SSB for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066392C070402
On 19 September 1995, an ARNG Judge Advocate Advisor informed the applicant’s command, that JAGC officers appointed with military education stipulations will be considered to be educationally qualified for promotion if satisfactorily progressing toward completion of military education at the date promotion boards convene. Based upon review by the Office of Promotions, the applicant’s official military personnel file (OMPF) showed material error when he was considered and non-selected by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091590C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to captain with a date of rank based on the 1995 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB). Based on the required 4 years time in grade, his promotion eligibility date (PED) for captain was 14 October 1994. An officer selected by an SSB would be entitled to the same date of rank as if the officer had been recommended for promotion to the grade by the mandatory board that should have considered the officer.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000479
The applicant provides: * October 2001 USAR Honorable Discharge Certificate * 1994 Selection for Promotion memorandum * 1995 Eligibility for Promotion Memorandum and Endorsement * 2001 Non-Selection Notification of Promotion * 2010 DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel) * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Orders Number 189 AR * Orders 224-1126, issued by the TXARNG, dated 12 August 2010 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. b. Paragraph 7-4 (Computation of promotion service to determine...