MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 25 September 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001054328

         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Adjustment to her date of rank (DOR) for lieutenant colonel.

APPLICANT STATES: That her DOR for major was backdated to 1 September 1990. An oversight occurred, resulting in her records not being reviewed for the 1996 LTC promotion board. Her records were subsequently submitted to the 1997 LTC promotion board and she was selected for promotion. She further states that she was selected for command and Army War College based on the 1997 promotion board selection and she believes she would have been selected for promotion by the 1996 promotion board. She submits copies of her promotion memorandum dated14 January 1992 backdating her promotion for major to 31 August 1990 and her promotion memorandum for LTC dated 18 June 1998 in support of her request.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

She was appointed in the Reserve, Military Intelligence, as a second lieutenant effective 18 August 1981.

She was ordered to active duty effective 22 May 1981. She was promoted to first lieutenant effective 17 August 1981 and to captain 1 September 1983.

She was released from active duty effective 31 October 1987 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

She was considered and not selected for promotion to major by the 1990 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB).

She was promoted to major effective 31 August 1991. On 14 January 1992, her DOR for major was adjusted to 31 August 1990. Her records do not show the reason for this adjustment.
7
Based on the 7 years time in grade (TIG) requirement, her maximum TIG date for LTC was 30 August 1997.

She completed 50% of the Command and General Staff Officers Course (CGSOC) effective 27 March 1997.

Officer Management Division of the Army Reserve Personnel Command verified that the applicant went into a higher graded position effective 2 September 1997.

She was considered and selected for promotion to LTC by the 1997 RCSB and she was promoted. Her DOR for LTC was 29 May 1998, the date the President approved the board.
The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), a public law enacted by Congress on 5 October 1994, prescribes the policies and procedures to consolidate and modernize the laws that govern Reserve component officers. The law was implemented on 1 October 1996. ROPMA specifies that an officer cannot be promoted until the President approves the board. ROPMA also provides that in order to be eligible for promotion to LTC, the TIG for a major is 7 years. ROPMA further species that, as in this case, unit officers must be serving in a position requiring the higher grade for promotion.

Current promotion policy specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error, which 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 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 policy 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.

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.

The Chief, Promotion and Notification Branch, Office of Promotions, Total Army Personnel Command, expressed the opinion the applicant was promoted to major on 31 August 1990. Promotion to LTC requires 7 years TIG; therefore her promotion eligibility date was 30 August 1997. She was considered and selected by the 1997 RCSB. Under ROPMA, an officer cannot be promoted until the President of the United States has approved the board. The President approved the board on 29 May 1998 and the results were released on 18 June 1998. Officer Management Division verified that she went into a higher graded position on 2 September 1997. She was issued a promotion memorandum on 18 June 1998 with a DOR of 29 May 1998, since this was the day the President approved the board.

Based on the officer’s DOR for major she should have been considered for promotion by the 1996 promotion board. She probably would have been
non-selected for promotion because she did not complete the education requirement until 27 March 1997, after the 1996 board adjourned. Therefore, she has not been scheduled for an SSB under the 1996 criteria.

The opinion was referred to the applicant for her acknowledgment and/or rebuttal on 21 June 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 an adjustment to her DOR for LTC. She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.

2. Her contentions are that her file was omitted from the 1996 RCSB and she believes that board would have selected her have noted by the board. However, the Board notes that had the 1996 RCSB considered the applicant she would not have been qualified or selected because she had not completed the required military education. The applicant was not educationally qualified in 1996 and does not have a basis for reconsideration by a special board under 1996 criteria.

3. It is further noted that the applicant was properly considered by the 1997 RCSB and selected. Her DOR for LTC was correctly established as 29 May 1998, the date the President approved the board.

4. The Board also notes that the applicant knew or should have known that completion of the Army CGSOC, or 50 percent thereof, was a long-standing regulatory requirement for promotion to LTC. The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates, promotion zones, and educational requirements are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications. She had 7 years to complete the required education and qualify for promotion, but did not do so until 1997 through her own volition.

5. 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.

6. 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____ _reb____ __le____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054328
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010925
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	131.00
2.	131.01
3.
4.
5.
6.