MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
                                   
        


         BOARD DATE: 8 January 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001057805

         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
Mr. David E. Weightman		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able		Member
Mr. Terry L. Placek		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: Correction of his records to show credit for battalion command time more clearly, and promotion to colonel.

APPLICANT STATES: In spite of the elapsed time, he was encouraged by his senator to apply for this correction, and that it is a sincere request and one that addresses a wrong whose time has hopefully come for correction.

He states he occupied colonel positions and received the highest outstanding ratings possible, recommendations for promotion ahead of his contemporaries and attendance at advanced civilian schooling, including while commanding the 10^th Special Forces, and he was supposed to be getting credit for command time commensurate with his rank. He states he was given this credit on his records but that it did not carry the same weight as if he had commanded an artillery battalion and led to his non-selection for colonel by promotion boards. His records were not accurate and he must have been considered as not branch qualified.

He submits documentation in support of his request, including parts of his official records, and letters from general officers and his branch manager.

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

The applicant was born on 3 June 1930. He initially served in the Reserve as an enlisted man from 16 May 1951 until commissioning. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Army, Quartermaster Corps from Reserve Officers Training Corps, Distinguished Military Graduate, University of Vermont, and he entered active duty on 4 August 1952. He was discharged from the Regular Army on 18 August 1955 and appointed in the US Army Reserve. He reentered active duty on 18 August 1956 as a Reserve officer, was appointed in the Regular Army, Artillery, effective 15 February 1958, and he was subsequently promoted to lieutenant colonel-temporary effective 3 November 1967 and to lieutenant colonel-permanent effective 3 August 1974.

On 1 December 1965, in response to his inquiry, the applicant’s Artillery Branch manager advised him that his request for advanced civil schooling in the social sciences could only be considered after completion of the US Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC). He stated that if selected for the 1966-1967 CGSC class he would then receive an appropriate staff assignment to utilize the military schooling. He also advised him that while his assignments in the field of Special Warfare provided an excellent opportunity to increase his potential, continued assignment in that field was inadvisable because it fails to provide the opportunity to maintain his branch qualification and to keep pace with his contemporaries.


The applicant had several Special Warfare assignments from 1966 to1972, including command as a lieutenant colonel, and in the military intelligence arena.

On 25 March 1968, in a letter of response to the applicant from a major general, the general advised him that since he has drifted so far and so long from his air defense artillery branch that he should seek command duty in a training center.
He stated that he would call his branch in his behalf and tell them that he would accept him as a battalion commander if he qualified for a nomination. The general also advised him that if this idea appealed to him that he should express a direct interest in such an assignment.

The applicant was considered but not recommended for promotion to colonel by a promotion selection board.

On 6 December 1974 a lieutenant general wrote a letter to the Commander, US Army Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN), in behalf of the applicant concerning the applicant’s failure of selection for promotion. Among other laudatory remarks, he mentioned his successful assignments and potential, and he requested assurance the applicant received full consideration in the selection process.

On 24 December 1974 the Acting Commander of the MILPERCEN responded to the lieutenant general. He thanked him for his interest and concern and agreed that the applicant compiled an excellent record. He stated he could not speculate on the reason for non-recommendation of the applicant, but that he received a careful, deliberate and equitable evaluation, and that his experience and training in Special Forces were given a conscientious evaluation by the promotion selection board members.

On 22 April 1975 the applicant requested voluntary retirement from active duty, with more than 21 years of active Federal service, and placement on the retired list on 1 July 1975. His request was approved on 13 May 1975, and he was honorably retired in the rank of lieutenant colonel.

The applicant completed the Artillery Officer Advance Course in 1960, the Chinese-Mandarin Language course in 1961, the CGSC in 1967, and a Master of Arts degree in Oriental Studies at the University of Arizona in 1973.







The applicant’s officer evaluation reports for his performance of duties as a lieutenant colonel show his rating officers rated him maximum in six of eight reports, with the balance of reports at near maximum. They also show his indorsing officers rated him maximum in two of eight reports, with the balance of reports at near maximum. The reports appropriately designate his command and branch qualification duties.

The applicant’s Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) shows his awards as: Bronze Star Medal (2d Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC)), National Defense Service Medal (1^st OLC), United Nations Service Medal, Federal Republic of Germany Sports Medal in Gold, 4M/Foreign Area Officer (China), Korean Service Medal, Master Parachute Badge, Ranger Tab, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, Army Commendation Medal (2d OLC), Air Medal, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry w/Palm, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Republic of China Parachute Badge, Meritorious Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Vietnam Cross of Gallantry w/Silver Star, Vietnam Parachute Badge, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Germany Jump Wings, Korean Presidential Unit Citation, Vietnam Staff Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal w/1 Battle Star, and the Meritorious Service Medal (1^st OLC).

Army Regulation 624-100, in effect at the time, prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of officers on active duty. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration due to administrative error, the fact that action by a previous board was contrary to law, or because material error 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 regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection.

The regulation also provides for the opportunity for officers to write to the promotion board president to provide documents and information calling attention to any matter concerning them that they consider important to their consideration.

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 consideration of all of the evidence in this case, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his records to show credit for battalion command time more clearly, and promotion to colonel. There is no evidence in the record, nor does the applicant provide evidence that shows he was not branch qualified, that material error occurred in his records when he was considered for promotion, or that he was precluded from promotion based on error or injustice. His records, including his evaluation reports, clearly show all of his assignments, his schooling, and his potential. The evidence does not show he was precluded from requesting and/or receiving assignments he thought, or was advised, were necessary for his career/promotion potential.

2. The Board does not dispute that the applicant may have a competitive record, however, it notes that, as shown in this case, promotion and retention on active duty is not automatic based on qualifications alone. It includes a competitive process of a promotion board determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade, and the needs of the service. Particularly pertinent in this case is that many officers, including those with competitive records, are not selected for promotion to colonel. Promotion to this rank is the most difficult of course, and a relative few are selected compared to the number considered.

3. The Board does not know why the applicant was not recommended for promotion. Promotion boards do not divulge that information. The Board does know, however, that the applicant received fair and timely promotion consideration with his peers, that all of his records were complete and available for review, and that his records did not contain material error. The evidence of record supports this, and he has not shown otherwise.

4. It is also noted the applicant, as he submits, was counseled by his branch manager at the mid-point of his career, and before he was promoted to lieutenant colonel, that he was straying from his branch and advised him accordingly.

5. It is further noted that the applicant submits his request more than 26 years since his non-recommendation for promotion to colonel, and that he requested voluntary retirement at the time, even though he may have remained on active duty. The Board concludes that his request is retrospective and inconclusive, and does not support the relief he is requesting.

6. 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.




7. 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

_tlp____ _rwa____ __lls___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057805
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	131
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.