| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his application to correct his records to show credit at a battalion command level, selection for senior service college, promotion to colonel, and selection for brigade level command, with the restoration of all rights, privileges, and property.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that other officers received credit for battalion level command during the Gulf War under similar situations. He asks that the Board review the records of four specific officers (he was denied access under the Privacy Act) which he contends will support his contentions. In support of his case he submits a letter from General H_______.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR200039824) on 12 September 2000.
The applicant submits a letter from General H_____, Commander, Headquarters US Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia. The general states that he has known the applicant since he was a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet and that he has extensive personal knowledge of the applicant’s outstanding record and abilities. He states that, in his opinion, there were obvious errors and discrepancies in the applicant’s OERs as well as a flaw in the rating scheme. He further states that he knows of no officer who he would consider better qualified or more deserving of promotion.
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 had 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. This Board is not a developmental board and does not normally investigate cases. Nor does it have the authority to review any personnel file without the individual’s permission unless there is an application before the Board.
2. Even if these records were obtained the specifics of each case are unique and may result in different outcomes under similar circumstances. The principle that equal justice does not require identical treatment is as applicable to administrative actions as it is to the law.
3. The applicant has failed to show that he ever held an official position of either of battalion commander or acting battalion commander. The applicant’s records reflect only that he served in the capacity of acting battalion commander as a part of his duties as an executive officer.
4. Not withstanding the opinion by General H _____, there is no evidence of improper preparation or processing of the applicant’s OERs, that the applicant served officially in a battalion level command, or that he is entitled to a Board directed selection for senior service college or promotion to colonel.
5. 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.
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
__RJW__ __BJE___ __JPI___ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001055233 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010802 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.09 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075746C070403
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074072C070403
The applicant argues that administrative error occurred when the senior rater (SR) was advised: 1) that he should adhere to the Officer Evaluation Guide published by the Evaluation Systems Office of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, 2) that a center of mass (COM) block rating by the SR with a credible profile was an evaluation worthy of promotion, 3) that there was only "some" inflation in the OER system; but 4) that there were no consequences if the SR failed to comply with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069142C070402
The SR, a colonel serving as the brigade commander, rated the applicant as best qualified, with appropriate comments concerning his performance/potential. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error that existed in the record at the time of consideration. The Board further concludes that the applicant has failed to overcome the presumption that the contested report was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056834C070420
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 memorandum dated 21 May...
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 | CY2001 | 2001054785C070420
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he qualified for the award by having commanded an infantry company in direct combat. The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that requires Board consideration. e. Special provisions - Republic of Vietnam (1) Any officer whose basic branch is other than infantry who, under appropriate orders, has commanded a line infantry (other than a headquarters unit) unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size for at least 30 consecutive days is deemed to have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068526C070402
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion. On 24 January 2002, PERSCOM informed him that promotion reconsideration was authorized under Title 10, U. S. Code and approved when records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053635C070420
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.” 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053717C070420
the effective dates granted to those earlier cases. 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: Approval of the applicant’s request for an adjustment of his effective date of promotion, and back pay based on actions taken in other similar cases, is not appropriate.
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...