| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be reconsidered for promotion to colonel by the fiscal year 1994 (FY 94), FY 95, FY 96, and FY 97 colonel promotion selection boards and restored to active duty in the event he is selected for promotion.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that it was the equal opportunity instructions, which the U. S. Court of Federal Claims declared in Christian versus The United States to be unconstitutional, given to the promotion boards that caused him to be nonselected. He was advised by the Director, Medical Service Career Activities that in at least one instance he made the initial cut for colonel only to be denied promotion after “quotas” were applied.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 20 May 1973 in the Medical Service Corps. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 1 February 1991. He apparently was first considered and nonselected for promotion to colonel by the FY 94 Army Medical Department colonel promotion selection board and considered and nonselected by subsequent promotion boards. He retired for length of service on 1 October 1998.
The applicant’s Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) all contain highly commendable comments but show that his senior raters (SR) rated him as a center-of-mass or dual center-of-mass officer for the most part. One OER received as a major and one received as a lieutenant colonel show he was rated as above center of mass.
OER Ending Period
SR Block Rating (* indicates applicant’s rating)
18 March 1986
0/0/*1/0/0/0/0/0/0
18 March 1987
*9/12/6/1/1/1/2/1/0
30 September 1987
*15/15/8/1/1/1/2/1/0
17 June 1988
*25/23/9/1/1/1/2/1/0
10 January 1989
*38/28/11/1/1/1/2/1/0
10 April 1989
0/*1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
1 May 1991
11/*13/12/1/0/0/0/0/0
1 May 1992
*24/27/12/2/0/0/0/0/0
1 May 1993
*37/40/15/4/0/0/0/0/0
1 May 1994
1/*1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
13 August 1994
*5/6/3/0/0/0/0/0/0
6 May 1995
*78/65/8/0/0/0/0/0/0
18 December 1995
*39/65/14/4/0/1/0/0/0
10 June 1996
*8/3/1/0/0/0/0/0/0
4 April 1997
*33/7/4/0/0/0/0/0/0
30 September 1997
*54/20/11/5/0/0/0/0/0
The applicant was also rated as center-of-mass under the new OER system on the OER ending 11 June 1998.
In 1999, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U. S. Army agreed to settle a lawsuit by two Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAGC) lieutenant colonels who claimed that the affirmative action portion of instructions used by the colonel’s promotion board violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The civil action was dismissed pursuant to those officers being reconsidered for promotion to colonel through a special selection board (SSB).
On 5 June 2000, the U. S. Court of Federal Claims established, in Christian v. United States (a case concerning an officer selected by a Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) for early retirement), that the equal opportunity instructions used by the SERB were unconstitutional. On 8 February 2001, that Court ruled that the results of that board are void. However, the ruling is not final and not yet subject to appeal by the Government and the ruling is controlling only in that litigation.
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 some previous cases, the Board granted the applicants promotion reconsideration based upon the 1999 U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia case and reasons of equity. The Court settlement involved JAGC lieutenant colonels non-selected for promotion to colonel; the Board’s cases involved JAGC lieutenant colonels non-selected for promotion to colonel by all or some of the same promotion boards that non-selected the individuals involved in the settlement.
2. In this case, the Board concludes that the same equity considerations do not apply. The applicant is a Medical Service Corps lieutenant colonel who was non-selected for promotion to colonel so he was not considered by the same boards that considered the individuals in the U. S. District Court case. The individual in the U. S. Court of Federal Claims case was considered by a SERB, not a promotion board. In addition, the applicant’s records, as evidenced by his OER history, do not appear to be so meritorious as to convince the Board that the only reason he was non-selected for promotion was due to the equal opportunity instructions.
3. Although a Senior Judge of the U. S. Court of Federal Claims has held the challenged equal opportunity board instructions unconstitutional in a SERB case, it is noted his decision operates only as the law of that particular case.
4. 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
__fne___ __mhm___ __bje___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059781 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011018 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.10 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010394C070208
He learned of the actions directed by the Court, and specifically the Court determination that the instructions used were unconstitutional, in November 2004 when a friend electronically mailed a Washington Post article that discussed the issues involved. In accordance with paragraph 5 of this message, applications for special selection boards received within one year of the date of the message "may be based on original board results that were released within 6 years of the application." It...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052780C070420
He was first considered for promotion to LTC by the FY 95 LTC JAGC Promotion Selection Board. The Board notes that the applicant had a group of OERs between October 1985 and January 1988 where he was rated as above center of mass. Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the officers who were recommended for promotion to LTC, JAGC were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061164C070421
Based on this case, the Board held that as a matter of equity it would be in the interest of justice to grant the same relief to two later applicants. In 1999, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U. S. Army agreed to settle a lawsuit by two JAGC lieutenant colonels who claimed that the affirmative action portion of instructions used by the colonel’s promotion board violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009679C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Major, O-4 when he was on active duty. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 628 states the Secretary of a military department may correct a person's military records in accordance with a recommendation by a special selection board. In accordance with paragraph 5 of this message, applications for special selection boards received within one year of the date of the message "may be based on original board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063912C070421
Other than his contention, the applicant has provided no evidence that the promotion selection board failed to perform its duties of selecting the best qualified officers for promotion regardless of race, gender or national origin. It does not appear to the Board that there was a material error in his records as they were considered by the FY 99 promotion board. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by submitting the applicant’s records to a duly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102694C070208
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) states that an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB for a number of reasons, including when the promotion selection board did not see an official photograph. If for some reason they cannot do so (if the officer being considered by the SSB is in the population being considered by the scheduled, regular board or if any of the members sat on the original board), they will contact the appropriate office (OTJAG, if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008179C070208
The applicant was advised that the guidance also imposed a time limit on requests for promotion reconsideration based on the pre-September 1999 Equal Opportunity promotion instructions. Specifically, the release date of the results for the promotion selection board, which considered but did not select the officer, must be within 6 years from the date that the affected officer submitted his request for promotion reconsideration to the U. S. Army Personnel Command (currently designated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028320
With respect to his promotion, the applicant states in a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Army: * Reserve officers were discriminated against since it was the promotion boards' prior determination (a quota system) that all promotions would go to Regular Army (RA) officers and minorities * his non-selection for promotion to COL is a grave injustice * promotion boards were in violation of equal protection and due process rights of persons considered for promotion under the Fifth...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009225C070206
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion. The Officer Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 noted that the EO language in the FY02 LTC Army promotion selection board was not ruled unconstitutional. Prior to 2000, selection boards were required to conduct a review of files for the effects of past discrimination in any case in which the selection rate for a minority or gender group was less than the selection rate for all officers in the promotions zone...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003960C070208
The applicant was advised that the guidance also imposed a time limit on requests for promotion reconsideration based on the pre-September 1999 Equal Opportunity promotion instructions. Applications for special boards received within one year of the date of the message may be based on original board results that were released within 6 years of the application. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by submitting...