| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests that a Special Selection Board give him promotion reconsideration.
3. The applicant states that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was incomplete when the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board considered him for promotion. Specifically, he states that his 12-month Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 19990605-20000604 was not in his OMPF and not seen by the FY2000 board.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he is a Major, Judge Advocate General’s Corps. From 5 June 1999 through 4 June 2000, he was the officer-in-charge, Civil Law/Fort Shafter Branch Office, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. As such, he received a 12-month OER utilizing DA Form 67-9. The report was an “above center of mass” report. The rater and senior rater characterized his performance as “outstanding” and the senior rater urged his immediate promotion to lieutenant colonel.
5. Army Regulation (AR) 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS). It states, in pertinent part, that completed reports must arrive at HQDA (Headquarters, Department of the Army) not later than 90 calendar days after the "THRU" date of the report. It states that the importance of the OER to many personnel actions, especially those involving DA selection boards, requires that this suspense be met.
6. The “THRU” date of the applicant’s report was 4 June 2000. This means that, by regulation, the report was due at HQDA not later than 2 September 2000. The cut-off date for information arriving for the FY2000 board was 5 September 2000. The board met from 12-15 September 2000. The applicant’s OER arrived on 15 September 2000 and was not seen by the board.
7. The applicant requested promotion reconsideration on two occasions. The US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) denied his request on 27 February 2001 and again on 27 March 2001. Subsequent to these denials, the FY2001 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board published its results on 5 February 2002; the applicant was not selected for promotion.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject OER was an “above center of mass” report. As such, it could only have strengthened the applicant’s record.
2. AR 623-105, recognizing the importance of the OER to the promotion selection process, mandates that OERs must arrive at HQDA not later than 90 calendar days after the "THRU" date of the report. Had this requirement been met, the applicant’s OER would have arrived in time to be considered by the FY2000 board.
3. The applicant’s file for the FY2000 board was missing an “above center of mass” OER that, by regulation, should have been included in the record. In the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to correct his record and give the applicant a review by a Special Selection Board for promotion reconsideration based upon the FY2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board criteria.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by granting the individual concerned promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board using the criteria for the FY2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board and including the OER for the period 19990605-20000604 in the record to be considered.
2. That if selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel, the individual concerned be given and appropriate date of rank and effective date based on that selection.
BOARD VOTE:
___cla__ __bje___ __dph___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Celia L. Adolphi
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002067946 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020613 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068521C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her records be corrected to include a "complete-the-record" evaluation report. She states that Table 3-7, of Army Regulation 623-105 states that the servicing administrative office will "provide administrative data for board OERs [officer evaluation reports] by preparing a shell of [a] DA Form 67-9 [Officer Evaluation Report]." She also states, in effect, that the same regulation requires that the evaluation section of the servicing administrative office notify...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009870
Counsel requests the applicant be considered for promotion to LTC/O-5 by an SSB and, if the applicant is selected, removal of the "non-selection for promotion" from his official military personnel file (OMPF), a retroactive promotion effective date to LTC, and continuation/reinstatement on active duty in the rank of LTC/O-5. d. Counsel cites: (1) Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), chapter 3 (Army Evaluation Principles), paragraph 3-60 (Complete-the-Record Reports), that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104838C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, removal of the senior rater's (SR) comments and rating from the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 4 June 1998 through 3 June 1999 [hereafter referred to as the contested OER]. The applicant contends that the contested OER contains the following significant errors: a) the SR on the contested report was also a rating official for the OER of the applicant's rater; b) the SR refused to counsel him during the rating period; c)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016378
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his promotion board file certification status and consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/pay grade O-5 by a special selection board (SSB). His DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) which was signed on 13 January 2014 prior to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 LTC promotion board should be added to his promotion board file for consideration by an SSB. However, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he...
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 | 2002083406C070215
The PERSCOM explained that promotion reconsideration is only authorized for officers nonselected for promotion whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 3.45, states that an officer who failed to be selected for promotion by an active-duty promotion board will receive an OER prior to the next promotion board. The rated officer has not received an OER since the convene date of the board that did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062441C070421
An LOR dated 25 October 1997 was sent to the applicant through the Commanding General, 42d Infantry Division by the applicant’s brigade commander (who was also the applicant’s rater on the contested OER). Paragraph 4-27 states that, among other reasons, any report with ratings or comments that in the opinion of the SR are so derogatory that the report may have an adverse impact on the rated officer’s career will be referred to the rated officer by the SR for comment. According to the OSRB,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008360
The applicant provides a 13 page brief in support of her request; a memorandum of support from a Army Nurse colonel; a 5 December 2005 memorandum of support from a JA colonel who was a classmate at the JA Basic School; a 17 March 2004 memorandum of support from a retired JA colonel, who is now an associate professor and his Curriculum Vita; a 19 June 2006 memorandum in reference to Observation of Work Environment in the 21st Theater Support Command, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate" by a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017269
The applicant requests removal of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Colonel (COL) Army Promotion List (APL) non-select letter from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), correction of the date of rank (DOR) and effective date of her promotion to the rank/grade of COL/O-6, correction of her mandatory retirement date (MRD) to 1 July 2017, and attendance at the Army War College in July 2014. g. The Army regulations provide that a special selection board (SSB) will not be convened to consider...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069142C070402
The SR, a colonel serving as the brigade commander, rated the applicant as best qualified, with appropriate comments concerning his performance/potential. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error that existed in the record at the time of consideration. The Board further concludes that the applicant has failed to overcome the presumption that the contested report was...