| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he receive constructive credit for resident attendance at the Army Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSC) along with Year Group 1983 (YG 83) officers. He later amended his application to request inclusion on the Alternate Battalion Command Selection List, if appropriate.
APPLICANT STATES: That a material error caused him to be nonselected for promotion. When the Board corrected this error, he was selected for promotion. He believes this same material error caused him to be not selected for resident CGSC. Constructive credit for resident CGSC attendance was given to several officers of YG 83 because of space and scheduling limitations. A letter was included in their Official Military Personnel Files (OMPFs) which reflected that they had received constructive credit for attendance but did not attend due to administrative reasons beyond their control.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That he was appointed a second lieutenant on 27 May 1981 and entered active duty on 13 July 1984. He was promoted to Major on 1 September 1994. A Service School Academic Evaluation Report, DA Form 1059, verifies that he completed CGSC in July 1996. Neither the DA Form 1059 nor his Officer Record Brief specifically indicates whether CGSC was completed resident or nonresident; however, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) confirmed that their database indicates he completed the nonresident CGSC.
In 1999, the applicant applied to the Board to have an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) removed from his records and to have his records reconsidered for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC). The Board granted the relief requested. His records were reconsidered for promotion to LTC and he was selected for promotion to LTC with a date of rank of 1 September 1999. Promotion orders were issued around February or March 2001.
All the applicant’s other OERs indicate that he had always been senior rated as center of mass, even when he received a top block rating.
PERSCOM confirmed that the applicant was in the YG that was authorized “resident credit” for CGSC. The criteria such officers had to fall under was: (1) Been selected by the board to go to CGSC; (2) Have completed the non-resident course and been awarded “graduate” for the non-resident course. PERSCOM confirmed that the applicant was not selected for resident CGSC; therefore, he would not have received the “resident credit” letter.
There are no current procedures for “relook” boards for command selection as there are for promotion selection. Primary command selectees are scheduled two years in advance of a command’s availability. Changes are made to the alternate command selection lists every year based on a new order of merit list generated from the Command Board. Alternate selectees are only activated by their branch when a selected officer is, as an example, deferred or turns down command. Primary selectees can also be moved to the alternate list when the scheduled command has been deactivated or otherwise becomes unavailable during the fiscal year he or she was to take command.
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 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.
2. The Board acknowledges that the applicant was selected for promotion to LTC after an OER had been removed from his records per decision by the Board. However, the Board notes that on all his other OERs he had been senior rated as center of mass. There is no indication that his records were so meritorious that he would have been selected for resident CGSC attendance absent the filing of that OER in his records. Even if an argument were made that the selection rate for CGSC was higher than for promotion to LTC, that would not negate the fact that promotion selection boards and school selection boards consider different criteria in making their determinations for selection or nonselection.
3. 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
__wtm___ __jrs___ __reb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056735 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010814 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074434C070403
He also states that not one signal officer was selected for battalion command last year without having attended resident CGSC. The OSRB concluded that the advice the SR most likely received from PERSCOM was that Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3-22c (2)(a) required the ACOM ratings to be less than 50 percent of his profiled reports. Selection Board but was not because of administrative error; and (2) When a CSC Selection Board considered and did not recommend for selection an officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608153C070209
The applicant states that the SR rendered the SR option (contested report) OER with the intent of showing that he was one of the best company commanders in the brigade. Although the Board cannot ascertain that the contested report has prevented the applicant from being selected for promotion, schooling, or command selection, it would be appropriate to correct the contested OER to reflect a top block rating and by deleting the SR profile from the contested OER. That all of the Department of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065911C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Informal coordination with the staff of the Promotions and Notifications Branch, Office of Reserve Components Promotions, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) revealed that the applicant was considered, but was not selected, for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1999 (8 September 1999) RCSB because he did not meet military education requirements. The Board notes...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058641C070421
In the alternate, he requests that he be considered for promotion by a special selection board, with instructions to that board that no adverse implication was to be construed by his having only two years of service in the rank of major or the number of officer evaluation reports (OERs) or types of duty assignments to date, and instructions to the board reflecting that in the absence of officer evaluation reports (OERs) during the period 1996-1998 while he was waiting for a decision on his...
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 | 2002071768C070403
It was noted that promotion reconsideration is approved only for non-selected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. The evidence of record shows the applicant's 2LT OERs were in his file when he was promoted to first lieutenant, captain, and major; however, there is no evidence that the 2LT OERs impacted negatively on those promotions. After a thorough review of the applicant's file, the Board concluded that there was no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005553C070208
This request for reconsideration was made after he successfully appealed, in his counsel's words, "two Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), with non-credible senior rater (SR) profiles, after his separation from the Army." When the Board considered the applicant's case in February 2004, the OER that the applicant had successfully appealed contained the following senior rater profiles and senior rater comments: a. (On 9 September 1992, after the Reduction in Force Board had considered this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069736C070402
A 1989 USAR Standby Advisory Board reviewed his record and selected him for promotion to MAJ. A 1989 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Proceedings directed that his discharge be voided, that he be promoted to MAJ, that he be credited with qualifying service for Reserve retirement, and that an explanation be placed in his records to show that the resulting gap in Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) was due to no fault of the officer. On 18 October 1988, ARPERCEN issued...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064935C070421
APPLICANT STATES : There is no way to compete for COL due to no fault of his own. OER Ending Period Senior Rater Block Rating (* indicates his rating) The Board concluded that it would be unjust to involuntarily separate her again and voided her previous nonselections to MAJ and showed that she was selected for promotion to major by the SSB which considered her for promotion to MAJ under the first year of her eligibility.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007934C070208
Powers | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 135-155 (Reserve Components Promotion of Commissioned Officers other than General Officers), dated 20 December 1960, paragraph 11 (Eligibility for promotion), subparagraph e(2) stated that, effective 1 January 1962, LTCs and majors of all branches must have successfully completed or received constructive or equivalent credit for the Regular or Associate...