| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for monetary compensation for 7 ½ years of active duty as a result of his lost Army career.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant defers to counsel.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the Board misinterpreted his request for separation pay. The applicant was not requesting a doubling-up of active duty and separation pay which he had already received in 1994. The separation pay he was requesting was for the termination of his Captaincy in January 2002. The proper formula for relief as a matter of law should have been the sum of his active duty Captain pay from 15 August 1994 (the date of his separation) through
January 2002 (the date of his separation if he had been non-selected to Major for the second time) plus separation pay at 1 January 2002 for non-selection to Major less the $20,596.68 in separation pay he received on 15 August 1994 due to his non-selection to Captain and income derived from all sources other than separation pay for the period 15 August 1994 through 2 January 2002. Had the applicant served on active duty since 15 August 1994 with a date of rank to Captain of 1 May 1994, he would be separated after a two-time non-selection to Major in January 2002. At separation he would receive separation pay. Given that the applicant was denied a normal career progression over 7 ½ years, equity demands that the unpaid portions be paid. Further, the applicant did not wait six years before appealing the Officer Evaluation Report (OER). The OER was rendered in September 1991. He filed his first appeal with the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) on 26 August 1992. PERSCOM returned it in three weeks without action. He appealed the OER again on 1 March 1994. The Officer Special Review Board summarily rejected the appeal. There exists no rational basis in law or equity for denial of some monetary relief.
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 26 April 2001 (docket number AR2000044152).
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 applicant had, in his earlier OER Board case, specifically requested that if he were selected for promotion he not be restored to active duty. It is pure speculation to presume that he would not have been promoted to Major had he returned to active duty. As the applicant noted in his 22 May 2000 letter, given the current shortages of both Captains and Majors, there was a good chance he would have been promoted. The Board grants that his missing 7 ½ years of active duty would have been a handicap and his chances would not have been as “good” as they would have been had he not had the break in active duty. However, he had a history of performance as a result of his post-separation U. S. Army Reserve service. His promotion to Major would not have been beyond the realm of possibility. Even had he not been selected for promotion to Major, he would have had recourse to the Board. The Board concludes that it would not be equitable to grant the requested relief of monetary compensation for a lost career that the applicant made a personal decision not to attempt to continue.
2. 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.
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
__gdp___ __wtm___ __rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064154 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020124 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090452C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, a military education waiver and promotion reconsideration to major. The applicant's records show he received officer evaluation reports (OER) for the periods ending 5 May 1992, 14 April 1994, and 4 November 1994, in which each rater stated the applicant should be selected for and attend OAC. The applicant had not completed his military education by the convening dates of the 2001 and 2002 promotion boards, he was not qualified for promotion without an...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002076998C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His records also show orders dated 20 February 1995 that indicate he was reassigned to a different Reserve unit effective 1 March 1995. The applicant became eligible for promotion to captain on 16 February 2000, after meeting all the requirements for promotion; therefore, his date of rank for captain has been correctly established.
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 | CY2003 | 2003090992C070212
On 10 October 2000, he was promoted to major by AR-PERSCOM with a date of rank of 1 September 1992 (the date of his appointment as a Reserve captain), based on the selection for promotion by the 1993 RCSB. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers) specifies that mandatory selection boards will be convened each year to consider Reserve and ARNG officers for promotion to captain through lieutenant colonel. The applicant is entitled to correction to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067767C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) states, in pertinent part, that education requirements for promotion eligibility for MAJ are a bachelor degree and completion of an officer advanced course prior to the convening date of the promotion board. It does appear that the records reviewed by the promotion board did not correctly show this information.
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 | CY2003 | 2003085148C070212
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 1-14 states that, subject to the needs of the Army, officers pending separation because of having twice failed to be selected for promotion may be selectively continued on active duty in their present grade. The Secretary of the Army will direct a selective continuation board to consider officers for continuation when required by the needs of the Army. If the BOI determines that the officer has established that he should be retained...