| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. David E. Weightman | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:
18. On 26 September 2000 this Board recommended approval of the applicant’s request for promotion reconsideration for major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) under fiscal year 1999 (FY99) criteria, based on material error. The Board concluded an improper absence of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from the records reviewed by the FY99 promotion board as material error. The contended OER covered the period 28 April 1990 through 5 February 1991, and was for his duties as a second lieutenant (2LT). It was further concluded that the OER was located in the Restricted portion (R-fiche) of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) microfiche record at the convening of the promotion board and not eligible for review. The Board’s recommendation (AR2000046991) was approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army on 13 October 2000, and forwarded to the Total Army Personnel Command for appropriate corrective action.
19. On 20 November 2000 the Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) returned the case to the Board without corrective action and provided a copy of PERSCOM Military Personnel message number 97-149. The message (undated) shows that concurrent with the implementation of the new OER system, access to second lieutenant (2LT) OER’s will be restricted after promotion to captain. It was an interim policy now made permanent, and was implemented Army wide prior to FY98 selection boards, including the FY99 major selection board. Specifically, it showed that 2LT OER’s of captains will be moved (masked) from the Performance portion
(P-fiche) to the R-fiche of respective OMPF’s.
20. The foregoing evidence was not made available to this Board at the time of the previous recommendation in this case.
21. Pertinent regulations specify that promotion selection boards review only the P-fiche of individual officer’s OMPFs.
22. The applicant was subsequently selected for and promoted to major, and he is currently serving on active duty in that rank.
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES:
6. At the time of the Board’s 26 September 2000 decision in this case, it was the intent of the Board to make the applicant’s record as administratively correct as it should properly have been at the time. However, substantial new evidence now shows a mistake of law in this case.
7. In accordance with the Military Personnel message 97-149, in effect at the time, the contested OER was properly filed in the R-fiche of the applicant’s OMPF. Therefore, since the contested OER was properly filed at the time, there was no error in his record when reviewed for promotion to major by the fiscal year FY99 selection board. It is also concluded that the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board based on the absence of the contested OER in the P-fiche of his OMPF at the time of the promotion review.
8. In view of the preceding and the additional factors noted, the Board concludes that the applicant’s record did not contain material error when reviewed by the FY99 selection board. The contested OER was properly filed in his R-fiche, it was properly not reviewed by the selection board, and he was properly considered for promotion. Therefore, he is not entitled to promotion reconsideration by an SSB under FY99 promotion criteria as was previously recommended.
9. The Board also notes that the applicant was subsequently selected for and promoted to major, and he is currently serving on active duty in that rank.
10. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below, to show there is no longer a basis for the granting of his request.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by rescinding the Board’s recommendation appearing in the proceedings dated 26 September 2000, and to show that the individual’s request for reconsideration for promotion to major was denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__sp____ ___rs__ ___ji_____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Shirley Powell_____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001053664 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010322 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111 |
| 2. | 131 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064814C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 4 July 1985 through 3 July 1986 be moved to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File. The regulation also states requests for reconsideration will be forwarded to the Commander of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) and reconsideration will normally not be granted when the error is minor or when the officer, by exercising reasonable care, could have detected and corrected the error. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076035C070215
However, he was not granted promotion reconsideration by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB). The OSRB opined, in effect, that the applicant had not exercised reasonable diligence in correcting his record before the promotion selection board convened and denied his request for reconsideration on 23 November 1999. While the Board will not attempt to assess how a selection board views the SR profile that was on the applicant’s contested OER, the fact remains that his appeal was approved...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010479C070206
The applicant states, in effect, he was denied due course promotion to MAJ because his company command Officer Evaluation Report (OER) was not timely processed and he was not considered by the FY99 Major, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board. 99-068. e. His company command OER for the period 19980320 – 19990319, with DA Form 200 (Transmittal Record) showing the OER was shipped on 7 April 1999. f. DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 21 September 1999. g. A 10...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010519C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the Board direct the Department of the Army to implement the Board’s previous decision to move a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an officer evaluation report (OER) to the restricted fiche of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and that she be granted promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the 2002, 2003, and 2004 promotion selection boards. While the applicable regulation does not provide for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605413C070209
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the aforementioned OERs were rendered during his prior active service as a commissioned officer and the presence of them in his OMPF serves to create an unfair and unequal discriminator against him for promotion selection. When a soldier reenters the Army after a break in service, the old OMPF will be sent from the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) to the appropriate OMPF custodian. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085330C070212
Counsel states that the applicant was unlawfully non-selected for promotion to LTC by two Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) convening in December 2000 and May 2001 under 1998 and 1999 criteria, when the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) failed to properly expunge derogatory documents from his official military personnel file (OMPF) microfiche. The applicant appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 1 August 1995 to be retained on active duty as an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081524C070215
The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a request to PERSCOM for promotion reconsideration by the FY98 LTC Chaplain Promotion Selection Board. The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a second request for promotion reconsideration. There is no evidence available to the Board which shows that the applicant's awards or decorations were removed from the ORB submitted to the FY99 promotion selection board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085716C070212
Counsel requests review of the applicant’s appeal by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). On 20 August 2003, the applicant’s counsel was advised of the administrative correction to her OER and provided a copy of the OSRB’s case summary. The applicant’s appeal of the OER to the OSRB was denied based on insufficient evidence to show the report in error or unjust, and based on the presumption of regularity that the report represents the considered opinion and objective...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091048C070212
Counsel states that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) corrected the applicant's Officer Evaluation Report (OER); however, the Officer Special Review Board (ORSB) refused to submit his records before a SSB. In a 10 October 2002 letter to this Board, the applicant's former senior rater, Col Sh, stated that he had discussed the writing of the OER with his peers at Fort Drum and the Transportation Branch at PERSCOM, and that it was his intent to provide an OER that would support his...