| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr . Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request for correction of his military record by promoting him to Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) for retirement purposes, and by sending him, as a retiree, to the Maintenance Test Pilot (MTP) course.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was prevented from attending a very important, career-enhancing school and denied promotion to CW3 because of unfounded allegations that were made against him. He adds that the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) removed an adverse Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from his record, in effect, dispelling the allegations that forced him to retire. He states that there is an on-going "whistleblower" investigation being conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General's Office (IG).
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 8 June 2000 (AR2000037156, COPY ATTACHED). The applicant has also submitted a memorandum, dated 4 October 2000, from Appeals and Corrections Branch, US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), informing him that his OER appeal was granted; and a 23 June 2000 letter from this Board forwarding the Board's Memorandum of Consideration of his original case.
The applicant received, and appealed, an adverse OER for the period 980902-990222. He was also a two-time nonselect for promotion to CW3 by the May 1999 CW3 Promotion Board. He was notified that, unless he chose voluntary retirement, he would be mandatorily retired. He chose voluntary retirement and was separated on 31 January 2000 by reason of sufficient service for retirement. He retired as a CW2.
On 3 October 2000, the OSRB approved the applicant's appeal of his OER for the period 980902-990222 and removed it from his record. The OSRB noted that the subject OER played no role in the applicant's nonselection for promotion to CW3 as the May 1999 CW3 Promotion Board did not see the report. The OSRB did not direct promotion reconsideration.
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. As stated in this Board's initial review of the applicant's case, his performance record did not show the applicant to be one of the best qualified warrant officers for promotion to CW3. Although the subject OER certainly would have added to the body of evidence supporting his nonselection for promotion to CW3, it played no part in that process because the promotion board did not see it.
3. 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.
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
__JL____ __RTD __ __RJW__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AC2001060124 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 20000608 |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020226 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005988C070206
The applicant provides a copy of her report of separation (DD Form 214), a copy of her OERs, her notification of release from active duty (REFRAD), her separation orders, her appointment memorandum, orders promoting her to chief warrant officer two (CW2), her officer record brief (ORB), the results of her appeal of three OERs to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB), the results of her request for promotion reconsideration to the OSRB, and statements from three fellow warrant officers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052662C070420
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. The chain of command endorsed the applicant’s request to the Board contending, in effect, that it was an injustice to not select the applicant for promotion and selective continuation. It states, in pertinent part, that commissioned and warrant officers who are twice nonselected for promotion will be involuntarily released from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082767C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that she successfully appealed an officer evaluation report (OER) that she received as a commander and the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) unjustly denied her promotion reconsideration to the rank of CW5. If determining a material error exists, reconsideration may be warranted based on the nature of the inaccuracy, the officer's overall...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088659C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In a four page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), in effect, that the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) does not have the authority to void his JAGC appointment. In Part IVa, the applicant received 4 ratings of "1", 7 ratings of "2" and 3 ratings of "3". Paragraph 4-27 of Army Regulation 623-105 requires that certain types of Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgement and comment before they...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076035C070215
However, he was not granted promotion reconsideration by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB). The OSRB opined, in effect, that the applicant had not exercised reasonable diligence in correcting his record before the promotion selection board convened and denied his request for reconsideration on 23 November 1999. While the Board will not attempt to assess how a selection board views the SR profile that was on the applicant’s contested OER, the fact remains that his appeal was approved...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063444C070421
The applicant contends the rater and SR evaluated him on duties outside his MOS and not in accordance with Army regulation. Further, the regulation also requires that any report with a potential evaluation in Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative comments to that effect from any rating official require referral to the rated officer. The contested OER was completed by the correct rating officials.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051134C070420
The applicant contends the rater and SR evaluated him on duties outside his MOS and not in accordance with Army regulation. Further, the regulation also requires that any report with a potential evaluation in Part Vd of “Do not promote” or narrative comments to that effect from any rating official require referral to the rated officer. The contested OER was completed by the correct rating officials.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057524C070420
The Inquiry Officer (IO) recommended a memorandum be prepared and sent to the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) requesting that the OER be returned to the rater for correction of Part Vd, promotion potential. He did so, but the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) returned the appeal without action. To present the whole truth, the comment should have been expanded to explain what he stole and why (“he took the company’s guidon to present to the former commander”).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077378C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his OER’S for the periods of 12 September 1996 through 11 September 1997 and 12 September 1997 through 11 September 1998 were not completed until 25 August 1999, that his rating chain was improper because he was never assigned to the 88 th Regional Support Command (RSC), that none of the requirements of Army Regulation 623-105 were complied with, that he was twice non-selected for promotion to LTC because neither the OER’s or a statement of non-rated time...