| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be promoted and advanced on the Retired List to chief warrant officer four (CW4).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his records were never presented before the CW4 promotion board because of the damaging statement made by a colonel in regard to his being medically disqualified from class 2 flying duties by reason of “exogenious obesity”. He contends that his records were never placed before a CW4 promotion board because of this harsh, physical description of him. He also claims that a photograph taken of him and reviewed by the 1977 flight evaluation board contradicts this statement. He also comments that in July 1977, his military occupational specialty (MOS) was changed from test pilot to aviation maintenance technician and during his career service in that MOS, he received outstanding evaluations. He also states that during that period he received numerous letters of commendation. In support of his application, he provides a record of his flight evaluation board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show
On 31 May 1982, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On the date of his separation, he held the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3), which he had attained on 1 November 1974.
On 20 November 1981, the applicant submitted a letter requesting that he be REFRAD on 31 May 1982, and placed on the Retired List in the rank of CW3 on 1 June 1982.
On 9 December 1981, Orders Number S237-17 were published by Department of the Army (DA). These orders directed the applicant’s release from assignment and duty on 31 May 1982, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 June 1982. The retired grade authorized the applicant in these orders was CW3.
A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 9 December 1981, prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing, contains the entry CW3 in
Item 2 (Active Duty Grade), Item 3 (Retired Grade), Item 8 (Highest Grade Attained), Item 9 (Permanent Grade), and Item 10 (Retired Pay Grade).
There is no evidence contained in the applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) or Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that shows that he was ever denied promotion consideration to CW4, or that he was ever selected for promotion to that rank by a DA promotion selection board.
On 31 May 1982, the applicant was REFRAD for the purpose of retirement. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him on this date confirms that he held the rank of CW3 on the date of his separation. There is no indication that the applicant ever raised the issue of his promotion to CW4 at anytime while he was still serving on active duty prior to his separation.
Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the Army policy and procedures for officer promotions. Chapter 7 contains guidance on promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB). It states, in pertinent part, that an officer or warrant officer may be reconsidered for promotion by a SSB when one or more of the following conditions exist: an officer was not considered for promotion from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error; a promotion board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error; and/or the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not
have before it some material information.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964 provides the legal authority for advancement of warrant officers and enlisted members on the Retired List. It states, in pertinent part, that warrant officer and enlisted members of the Army are entitled, when their active service plus their service on the retired list totals
30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily.
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 notes the applicant’s contention that he was unjustly denied consideration for promotion to CW4 because of his weight condition was described as “exogenous obesity” by a colonel. Therefore, he should be promoted and advanced on the Retired List to CW4. However, notwithstanding the applicant’s objection to characterization of his weight condition, the Board finds no evidence to show that this resulted in his being unjustly denied promotion consideration.
2. By regulation, to be eligible for promotion reconsideration there must be evidence to show that an officer was not considered for promotion from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error; a promotion board that considered an officer for promotion acted contrary to law or made a material error; and/or the board that considered an officer for promotion did not have before it some material information. In addition, by law, to be advanced on the Retired List, a member must have been promoted to and satisfactorily served in a higher grade while on active duty.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was never selected for or promoted to CW4 while serving on active duty. Further, his Personnel Qualification Record and MPRJ contain no information or documentation that suggests that he was ever unjustly denied promotion consideration to CW4 as a result of an administrative error. Thus, lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support the requested relief.
4. Finally, the record verifies that on 1 June 1982, the applicant was voluntarily placed on the Retired List in the rank of CW3, the highest rank he held while serving on active duty, in accordance with the applicable regulations.
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
__MKP__ __CJP __ _ _HBO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073296 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/29 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/05/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000 |
| 2. 319 | 131.0900 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018687
The applicant truly believes that, after his acceptance of appointment to the rank/pay grade of chief warrant officer two (CW2)/W-2 and the pattern of his speedy advancement to the rank/pay grade of CW4/W-4, had he been retained on active duty as an RA officer in the rank/pay grade of MAJ/O-4, he would have advanced to at least the rank/pay grade of LTC/O-5 in a relatively short time and been able to retire in that grade. The applicant's requests for correction of his record to show that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016027C070206
The applicant's military record shows he was appointed in the USAR, as a warrant officer one, effective 26 January 1966, with prior enlisted service. He was issued a promotion selection letter, dated 29 February 1980 which advised of his selection with a projected PED of 26 January 1981. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002985
The applicant provides: * Memorandum, dated 25 March 1992, Review of OER application (19880901-19881231) * Memorandum, dated 25 March 1992, Correction of Military Records * Promotion Order Number 162-3, dated 21 August 1992 * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABMR) Docket Number AC91-09256, dated 20 August 1992 * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 25 September 1990 * OERs for the rating period 19871230-19880831, 19880901-19881231, 19900408-19910201 * Memorandum, dated 8 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003854
By letter dated 26 August 2003, the applicant was notified by the U.S. Army Total Army Personnel Command St. Louis that he was not selected a second time for promotion. It stated, "A review of the applicant's records revealed that he was considered, but non-selected by the 2002 and 2003 Chief Warrant Officer Four Department of the Army Reserve Components Selection Board as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. Evidence shows that he was well aware of the 2002 and 2003 DA RCSBs and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051136C070420
The applicant was considered by the next available Reserve CW3 Promotion Board, the FY94 promotion board, but was not selected for promotion. The effective date for the applicant’s promotion to CW3 from the FY95 board His present promotion memorandum to CW4, dated 1 August 2000, should be corrected to be dated 19 May 2000, the adjournment date of the promotion board and therefore the effective date for promotion to CW4 and the date from which CW4 pay and allowances should be paid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079077C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of chief warrant officer three/W-3 (CW3/W-3). He served on active duty in an enlisted status for 9 years, 1 month, and 13 days, from 26 May 1972 to 9 July 1981, at which time he was honorably discharged, in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6), in order to accept a warrant officer appointment. The evidence of record reveals that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056720C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000479
The applicant provides: * October 2001 USAR Honorable Discharge Certificate * 1994 Selection for Promotion memorandum * 1995 Eligibility for Promotion Memorandum and Endorsement * 2001 Non-Selection Notification of Promotion * 2010 DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel) * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Orders Number 189 AR * Orders 224-1126, issued by the TXARNG, dated 12 August 2010 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. b. Paragraph 7-4 (Computation of promotion service to determine...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014420
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110014420 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer four (CW4) be changed from 25 May 2007 to 22 June 2002. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) which indicates that unless discharged from the USAR, a National Guard officer becomes a member of the USAR when...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012865C071029
Office of the Adjutant General, U. S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center Orders P-05-002269 dated 20 May 1981 placed the applicant on the retired list effective 27 March 1981. Members in the Retired Reserve are in a retired status. When the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve on 1 July 1979, he was removed from an active status and placed in a retired status.