| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by reconsidering him for promotion to chief warrant officer four (W-4) under the 1997 criteria.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that in view of all the facts of his case, he should be reconsidered. He contends that, given his assignment constraints, he completed the Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) just as early as he possibly could. Furthermore, he was notified that the 1995 non-selection did not constitute a passover and he believed this to be true until he received the 31 July 1995 memorandum in May 1996. By that time, the 1996 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) had already convened. He believed that he had plenty of time to meet the education requirement. He submits a package of documents he received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and questions why it did not include the 31 July 1995 memorandum that he received in May of 1996. Because the details raised in his rebuttal were not discussed in the Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) he believes they were not properly considered.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in an MOC prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1999027909) on 23 February 2000.
The applicant’s submissions are new evidence and argument that require Board consideration.
In his rebuttal to the advisory opinion on the original case, the applicant argued that he should not have been considered by the 1995 RCSB, because he was not eligible for promotion until 1 November 1997. He further contended that the 1995 non-selection should not be considered a passover because Paragraph 2-4d of Army Regulation 135-155 provides that, ”Nonselection for promotion under this paragraph does not constitute a passover.”
He pointed to the 7 July 1995 memorandum from The Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that informed him that his non-selection did not constitute a passover and contends that this led him to believe that he had plenty of time to complete the WOAC. He repeated his assertion that he never received any notification or promotion board package and contends that he was not eligible for consideration by the 1995 Board. He concluded that since he was not eligible for consideration the non-selection should not be considered a passover.
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 that 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 if an individual is not qualified for non-completion of required military schooling. Paragraph 3-4 states that each individual to be considered will be notified at least 30 days prior to the convening date of the applicable selection Board. However, it also provides that, “Lack of notification to an officer does not provide an independent basis for the officer to be considered by a standby board under paragraph 3-14.”
Paragraph 3-14e(1) of the regulation states that Headquarters, Department of the Army, “will normally not determine that a material error existed under the following conditions:…the officer in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered the error….”
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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 light of the fact that the applicant had from 1 November 1990 to become educationally qualified and that the workings of the officer promotion system are well known, the Board considers that the applicant did not exercise reasonable diligence and that reconsideration for promotion is not appropriate.
2. Position assignments may have impacted upon the case. However, even if the applicant believed that the 1995 non-selection was not “a passover’” he had to have known that non-selection by the 1996 RCSB would seriously jeopardize his future chances of promotion. The Board finds the failure to achieve educational qualification and to simply accept the, inevitable, non-selection by the 1996 RCSB to be a careless disregard for his own career which further militates against relief.
3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__SAC __ __RKS__ __MDM__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001053635 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011213 |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001064687C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that he be retained in an active Reserve status and promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4); or that he be allowed to attend phase II of the food service technician (MOS 922A0) warrant officer advanced course (WOAC) or a comparable course in order to be eligible for promotion to CW4. On 17 December 1998 the Warrant Officer Career Center (WOCC) at Fort Rucker informed the applicant that he had the option of completing the nonresident...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008239
On 17 May 1999, the HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, Deputy Chief, Officer of Promotions, responded to the applicant informing him that: a. he was considered for promotion to LTC by the 1996, 1997, and 1998 Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB), but was not recommended for promotion. Note that for the DA Form 67-8 the rating system depicted below has six entries: the first two entries are derived from the rater performance and potential blocks, expressed in numerals, with 1 the highest and 5 the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005402C070208
Part IVc of the applicant's NCOER for the period ending June 1996 indicated he had a profile effective December 1994 and contained the comments, "SM was on profile due to chronic back injury during the entire rating period;" "diligently conducted PT within the limits of profile;" and "profile does not interfere with assigned duties." The Board concludes that if the promotion selection boards in January 1997 and later did not recommend him for promotion after seeing later NCOERs with these...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069405C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...
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 | 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 | CY2010 | 20100011648
The applicant provides the following documentary evidence: a. ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AC95-08778, dated 19 March 1997; b. a letter from the Commander of American Legion Post 37, dated 28 March 2008; c. U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St. Louis, MO, Orders C-05-421624, dated 17 May 1994, transferring him to the Retired Reserve, effective 12 May 1994; d. a memorandum from U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (USTAPC), St. Louis, dated 14 October 1994, notifying...