| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by expunging an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period ending 30 April 1997, restoring him to active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program and authorizing back pay, setting aside the two non-selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel, referring him to a special selection board and promoting him, if selected. He also, in effect, requests a personal appearance before the Board.
APPLICANT STATES: He takes umbrage with several items he sees as shortcomings in the original Board's write-up of his case. These include mention of his previous active duty Navy service, and the fact he believed that the commanding general did not have sufficient time to become familiar with his case before denying his request for a waiver to remain in the AGR program.
He states in effect, his superiors wanted to get rid of him by any means possible. From the time that he supposedly failed two physical fitness tests (PFTs) he believed that there was a conspiracy against him. He submits, as new evidence, including medical records to show that his chain of command ignored his injuries at that time.
He submits copies of "Hot Sheet" summaries of brigade action due. He reports that he developed the idea and originated each of these reports. He offers them to demonstrate that he could, indeed, write well and that he did most of the brigade's work. He also offers two security manuals to demonstrate his writing skills.
He submits copies of OERs, awards and commendations he has received subsequent to the subject OER.
The applicant complains that the Board's original Memorandum of Correction (MOC) noted only unfavorable information from his previous OERs and offers several glowing remarks from previous OERs to demonstrate the quality of his earlier service.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001063738) on 5 March 2002.
Copies of documents relative to the PFT failures, the "Hot Sheets," security manuals and the evidence (OERs, commendations and awards) of his performance subsequent to the Board's original decision are new evidence that requires Board consideration.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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 evidence and argument concerning the aborted elimination based upon the applicant's alleged failures of the PFT may convince the applicant that there was a conspiracy against him but they are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Furthermore, if anything the outcome of that incident demonstrates that, in the final outcome, the applicant was treated fairly.
2. There is no available evidence to show that the applicant either originated the "Hot Sheet" idea or that he authored the security manuals. Furthermore, these items do nothing to show unfairness or inaccuracy in the comments (as quoted in the original MOC) in the subject OER.
3. The applicant's performance subsequent to the subject OER has been noted but it does not demonstrate that the OER was unfair or unjust, nor is there any evidence to show that the subject OER is the only reason he was non-selected for promotion. Since there is insufficient justification for corrective action on the OER there is insufficient justification for any action on the other requests.
determines that a case is so complex, or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information. This Board does not consider a formal hearing necessary.
| CASE ID | AR2002075746 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030128 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | 111.01 |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055233C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053635C070420
He further contended that the 1995 non-selection should not be considered a passover because Paragraph 2-4d of Army Regulation 135-155 provides that, ”Nonselection for promotion under this paragraph does not constitute a passover.” It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018495
Counsel provides * a memorandum for record (MFR) from MAJ R______ Y. K____ * email notes regarding the applicant's separation and drill status CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. It states promotion boards will be provided a promotion consideration file for each eligible officer. For U.S. Army Reserve officers a DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) will also be included in the promotion consideration file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057941C070420
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 | CY2003 | 2003084890C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by revoking his transfer to the Retired Reserve, reinstating him to an active status and awarding him sufficient credit to permit him to qualify for retired pay at age 60. The Board notes that the DA Form 1380 provided by Mr. R_____ only shows 50 retirement points in column c. The Board is accepting this information as it is intended to be used, to establish participation and qualify the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059459C070421
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS :...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067963C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. A 4 November 1999 letter from AR-PERSCOM to a member of congress explained that the applicant was scheduled to attend ANCOC from 8 August through 23 August 1996 and that he had been ineligible for promotion through his own volition because he had requested that his attendance be cancelled. A 20 February 1997 memorandum from the Chief, Joint Movement Division, United...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004886
Through a State Representative, the applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his two earlier petitions requesting the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the periods ending on 4 May 1989 and 12 October 1989, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and his reinstatement on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. In a letter to his State Representative, the applicant states, in effect, that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086048C070212
If his SR stated that he was an "excellent soldier doing an outstanding job," "should be given opportunity to serve on the Brigade Staff," "has potential beyond his present assignment," etc., then that same SR gives a 2-block rating, without any comment to the contrary, there is nothing to indicate a demonstration of weak performance. The board report showed that the reasons the SRB did not select him for retention were: (1) performance – evaluations were average or below center of mass for...
AF | BCMR | CY1981 | BC 1981 01237
As he was considered and denied promotion to lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) by selection boards in 1974, 1975, and 1976, he submitted a second application requesting his non-selects to Lt Col be set aside, his DOR to major be changed to its former date of 24 Feb 71, and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) for the period ending 31 Jul 75 be changed to reflect a more favorable review by the Indorsing Official. Notwithstanding the previous reconsiderations for promotion the applicant had been...