| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion reconsideration to chief warrant officer five (CW5) under 2001 criteria.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has an unblemished 32-year record with maximum officer evaluation report (OER) ratings. He also states that not one Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) CW4 was selected for CW5, all six selected were troop program unit (TPU) warrant officers. He has served in the AGR program for over 14 years as a CW4 and has been reviewed for the CW5 position at the brigade level. He also states that his OER for 2000 appears to be missing from his file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was appointed in the Reserve as a warrant officer one effective 9 October 1964. He was promoted to CW2 effective 9 October 1967.
He was appointed in the Indiana Army National Guard as a CW 2 effective 1 June 1978.
He was promoted to CW3 effective 3 December 1980 and to CW4 effective 3 December 1986.
He was considered and not selected for promotion to CW5 by the 1993 and 1994 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB's). The boards did not divulge the reason(s) except that it was not for lack of military education.
His records did not indicate material error when considered by the 1993 and 1994 promotion boards.
Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records 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 non-selection 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 non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.
This regulation also specifies that a copy of the officer’s records are dispatched 30 days before the convening date of the board and officers are directed to review the records and submit copies of missing documents and other corrections. A lack of notification does not provide an independent basis to be reconsidered by a STAB.
The Director, Full Time Support Management Directorate, Army Reserve Personnel Command, provided an advisory opinion that was derived from reference to Army Regulation 135-155. It stated, in effect, that promotion board selections are based on those solders that are best qualified. Factors considered during board proceedings include, but are not limited to, evaluation reports, assignments and levels of responsibility. In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.
The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 6 May 2002. He did not respond.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration to CW5. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board has noted his contentions that he has an unblemished 32-year record with maximum OER ratings and that an OER for October 2000 appeared to be missing from his file. However, his records indicate they were complete and without material error when he was considered for promotion to CW5 and he was simply not selected. He has not shown otherwise. The Board does not dispute his contentions that he has a competitive record, however, it notes that, as shown in this case, promotion and retention is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of a promotion board determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade, and the needs of the service.
3. The Board also notes that promotion and retention is keenly competitive, and that many officers will not be selected.
4. The Board also notes the applicant’s contention that TPU warrant officers were selected but that AGR warrant officers were not selected; however, his contention is not supported by his application and does not show the Board that he was not properly considered.
5. 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.
6. 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
_LLS____ __PM___ _DPH___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068914 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020806 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073057C070403
However, in this case, the applicant could not be selected based on the fact his 2000 record did not reflect completion of the required military education requirements (WOAC) by the convene date of the board. The applicant submitted an Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149) requesting a STAB due to a Code 11, OER missing from his 2001 file. However, pertinent regulations do not specify that an OER Code 11, Promotion Report is required for subsequent promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016141
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be considered for promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5)/pay grade W-5, by a promotion advisory board under the 2008 CW5 Department of the Army Reserve Components Selection Board (DA RCSB) promotion criteria. The Chief, Special Actions, DA Promotions, stated that the applicant's board file was missing two OERs with through dates of 9 January 2006 and 15 April 2006, which should have been seen by the original selection board. The evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001615C070205
The applicant request, in effect, promotion reconsideration to colonel, as an Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) officer, by a special selection board (SSB), under the 2005 year criteria. The applicant's military records show he was appointed in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), as a second lieutenant, effective 11 December 1981. The Board also concludes that the applicant did not present convincing evidence of a material error in his file at the time he was not selected for promotion by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000436
The applicant provides: * Amended promotion orders changing his date of rank and effective date to 14 August 2012 * 8 October 2013 email from CW5 P------ J W----- at the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve (OCAR) * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum, dated 31 July 2012, on Reserve Component CW5 competitive categories with five enclosures * Memorandum from Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G1, instructions for the FY 13 WO-5 promotion board with enclosures * 15 December 2013...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019759
The applicant requests, in effect, a determination as to whether he would have been promoted to chief warrant officer five (CW5) while on active duty and if so, reconsideration for promotion to CW5 by a Special Selection Board (SSB). The request is based on his assumption that various training and certificates of training documents were missing from his board file in error; and if such mock board would recommend promotion selection, continue reconsideration by a formal Special Selection...
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 | CY2009 | 20090020321
The applicant provides: * congressional correspondence * a memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 19 November 2009 * a copy of the OER with an ending date of 3 October 1991 * a copy of his Officer Record Brief with a preparation date of March 1993 * copies of course completion documents for the Warrant Officer Support Maintenance Technician Course * an Army Achievement Medal Certificate * a Junior Officer Maintenance Course diploma * a DA Form 1059...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000525
The copy of the BCF sent to the applicant by AHRC includes both the incorrect and corrected OERs. Evidence indicates an incorrect OER was present in the applicant's BCF at the time he was considered for promotion to colonel. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by placing his record before a duly-constituted SSB for promotion consideration to colonel under the criteria followed by the FY 2008 USAR Colonel JAG...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711722
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to void his discharge and to show he was selected and promoted to major. Included with his application are memorandums from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) showing the reason he was not selected was based on two evaluation reports showing “Do Not Promote”, and also based on the lack of a baccalaureate degree. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007127
The applicant requests correction of her military records to add her missing DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) and to be reconsidered for promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5), pay grade W-5. The applicant was non-selected for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. submitting her records to a duly constituted selection board/advisory board for promotion consideration for CW5 under...