| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reconsidered for promotion to Colonel, Medical Corps (MC) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) and, if selected, that he be given an effective date of rank of 23 June 2000.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was passed over for promotion to Colonel, MC by boards that convened in 1998 (FY98) and in 1999 (FY99). He believes that several reasons may have contributed to his being passed over. First, the new Officer Evaluation Report was implemented in 1998 and he was rated at "center of mass" and assured that this would not have any negative effect on his selection for promotion to Colonel because it was the first report under a new system. He did not complete the Command and General Staff College Course; however, he knows two MC officers who were promoted to Colonel who also did not complete the course. The applicant also states that he was a USAR soldier and, based on misinformation, he believed that it was mandatory for him to leave the military after 20 years of active Federal service; therefore, he submitted his retirement papers when he was in the primary zone for promotion. The applicant adds that he routinely met height and weight requirements and, in the spring of 1999, he passed his Army Physical Fitness Test despite having had a profile the previous year for a foot problem. He continuously sought greater responsibility and self-improvement. He also states that he achieved his greatest accomplishment after he became the Program Director of the Hand Surgery Fellowship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC). In April 1999, the training program was on probation with the Residency Review Committee (RRC). By February 2000, the RRC reevaluated the fellowship program and awarded full accreditation. In support of his request, he submits a copy of his Officer Record Brief.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from 14 December 1969-5 December 1973.
On 28 November 1978, the applicant was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, in the United States Army Reserve (USAR). On an unknown date, he became a full-time active duty student attending medical school at government expense.
The applicant entered active duty on 22 June 1982, as a First Lieutenant, MC.
On 24 June 1982, the applicant was promoted to Captain. On 24 June 1988, he was promoted to Major and, on 23 June 1994, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. His branch was MC at the time of all three promotions. On 29 September 1998 and on 10 August 1999, the Colonel, MC, Promotion Boards met and considered the applicant for promotion to Colonel. He was not selected.
The applicant was honorably retired on 30 June 2000 in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, pay grade 05. He had completed 22 years of active military service. He had also completed 6 years, 1 month and 26 days of prior inactive service.
On 1 July 2001, the applicant was ordered to active duty in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, MC with a voluntary commitment of 4 years.
Army Regulation 624-100 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of officers on active duty. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a SSB may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration 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 nonselection 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 nonselection.
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 Board does not know why the applicant was not selected for promotion to Colonel, nor will it attempt to determine why certain officers were selected for promotion over the applicant.
2. In order for the Board to recommend that the applicant's records go before an SSB, there must be proof of administrative or material error in his record. The applicant has provided the Board no evidence that indicates an administrative error or a material error existed in his record that caused him to be nonselected for promotion to Colonel.
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
__rvo___ __rwa___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064824 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020620 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20000630 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR600-8-24 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A03.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 102.0700 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02881
He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 2002, having been selected for promotion to that grade by the CY00A selection board. In view of the statements provided by the evaluators of the contested report, and having no basis to question their integrity, we conclude that the applicant’s records should be corrected to substitute the reaccomplished OPR, closing 26 May 1999, for the one currently in his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01919
The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that he believes the inclusion in the MOI of the sentence, “In considering a DP recommendation, it is appropriate to consider the competitive circumstances under which the DP was awarded, as indicated on the PRF” violated the spirit of the SSB process. Based on the fact that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000003C070206
The applicant was also not eligible for selection because he did not meet the education requirements for promotion, which was completion of an officer advance course. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command (HRC) – St Louis, which opines, in effect, that while the reasons for his nonselection are unknown, the applicant could not be selected based on the fact that he had not completed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091750C070212
The applicant states that he was not provided due process because the majority of his official military personnel file (OMPF) was not available for review by the promotion selection boards and the special selection boards (SSB's). Based upon review of the applicant’s records by the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), it was determined that the applicant’s OMPF contained material error when he was considered and not selected for promotion to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005102
As he was serving as a CW2 in the NYARNG when he was notified of his promotion to LTC, when the board considered him for promotion to COL he did not have any Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) as a LTC in his records. He was recalled to active duty from a retired status and served on active duty in the rank of LTC as follows: * 16 November 2008 - 1 April 2009 * 28 June 2009 - 27 June 2010 * 1 August 2010 - 31 July 2011 13. Given that he was not selected for promotion to COL by three...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-1999-02707
The SSBs for CY1998A and CY2000A promotion selection boards were comprised of the same officers in violation of 10 USC 612(b) and AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, which indicates that an officer cannot serve as a member of two successive boards considering officers of the same competitive category and grade. The applicant was non-selected for promotion by each board and was therefore considered for selective continuation by the SSB for the CY2000A board; however,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1999-02707A
Pursuant to the remand order of the United States Court of Federal Claims that the Board review the applicant’s request for promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) and any other matters counsel presents regarding applicant’s separation, we have conducted a thorough analysis of the case file, which now includes counsel’s submission requesting, in addition to SSB consideration, consideration of the applicant’s case and advisory...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02572 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES RESUME OF CASE: On 12 February 1998, the Board considered applicant’s requests that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of major beginning with the Calendar Year 1993 (CY93) Central Major Board be declared void and his records be corrected to reflect selection for promotion to the grade of major by the CY93 board and...
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.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 October 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to...