| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Paul A. Petty | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be given a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4).
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not selected for promotion to CW4 by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 promotion board. He discovered that his most recent Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period 1 October 1997 through 30 April 1998, was not seen by the board through no fault of his own. He requested that the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) conduct a SSB but the request was denied with the explanation that the missing OER was an immaterial error. His senior rater had given him a strong OER for consideration by the promotion board but due to processing error beyond his control, the board did not get to see the OER.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That he was a Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) with a date of rank of 1 March 1993, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 1997. He received a Change of Rater OER for the period 1 October 1997 through 30 April 1998. The OER was a senior rater, top box, center of mass report. The rater gave him top marks. Both rating officers made complimentary remarks. Since being promoted to CW3, the applicant had received six center of mass OERs, one below center of mass OER, and one “Achieved Course Standards” Academic Evaluation Report.
He was considered by the FY 1998 CW4 promotion board and not selected. He requested reconsideration by a SSB. His request was denied by PERSCOM which stated that the OER in question was received by the PERSCOM Evaluation Reports Branch on 14 May 1998, but to be eligible for consideration by the board, it must have arrived on or before the promotion board due date,
5 May 1998. Since the OER was not a mandatory code 11, Promotion Report, its absence from the file did not constitute a basis for promotion reconsideration.
He was considered by the FY 1999 and FY 2000 promotion boards but was not selected for promotion. He was considered by the FY 2001 CW4 promotion board, selected for promotion, and promoted to CW4 on 1 October 2001.
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 1.33.d, states that to be considered by a promotion board, evaluation reports for officers in the zone of consideration must be received in the Evaluation Reports Branch, PERSCOM, by the due date identified in the selection board notice. An evaluation report received after that date will only be provided to the promotion board if it has a “thru date” more than 60 days earlier than the due date for the board, is a code 11 promotion report, or is a referred report.
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. The OER, which concluded on 30 April 1998, was not received by PERSCOM Evaluations Branch until 14 May 1998, well after the due date of 5 May 1998, for submission to the FY 1998 promotion board. It has not been demonstrated that there was any error in the submission and processing of the report.
2. The OER in question was a center of mass report, which did not significantly alter the applicant’s CW3 OER record of six center of mass reports and one below center of mass report. With the OER in question included in the applicant’s record, the applicant was not selected for promotion by the two subsequent promotion boards in FY 1999 and FY 2000. This demonstrates that the OER in question would not likely have affected the outcome of the FY 1998 promotion board decision.
3. Based on the above, there is no evidence that material error or injustice occurred that would justify reconsideration by an SSB for promotion to CW4 under FY 1998 criteria with inclusion of the OER in question.
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
__wm____ __rs___ __cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062349 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020402 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.11 – Special Selection Board |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066998C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW-3). Following operational assignments the applicant attended the Basic Arabic Course at the Defense Language School, from 18 February 1999 to 8 June 2000. It pointed out that any officer who has been non-selected by an active duty promotion board is supposed to receive an OER before being considered by another promotion board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016636C070206
Of the five form 67-8s rendered on the applicant, and which would have been seen by the 2000 CW3 promotion selection board, his senior raters placed him in the top block on four of the five reports when rating his potential. On the applicant’s last three evaluation reports, utilizing form 67-8, his senior raters placed all of the officers they rated, including the applicant, in the top block. The applicant was in the promotion zone for this selection board and was selected for promotion to CW4.
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 | 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010973C070208
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), in effect at the time, provides that whenever the needs of the service require, selection boards will be convened to recommend officers for promotion. Therefore, if the promotion board considered the "3" block in its determination, the board would have also considered the positive effect of the narrative provided by the senior rater. Considering all of the above, it is determined that there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant's...
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001057834C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In item Vc of that form, her rater did state, “PROMOTE NOW and select for Battalion Command with follow-on assignments at DA level Staff.” The applicant’s senior rater stated that she was best qualified, that she “should be promoted to LTC now and given the opportunity to command at battalion level.” Her potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade, item...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015461
The applicant requests consideration for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3)/pay grade W-3 by a special selection board (SSB). The applicant states an annual officer evaluation report (OER) was not submitted in time for the promotion board to review. This paragraph provides that officers in the zone of consideration will review and update their Officer Record Brief (ORB); all current, available admissible personal information will be submitted to the Official Military Personnel...
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. ...