| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of his date of rank (DOR) to captain (CPT) from 1 October 1997 to 1 October 1996.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the file reviewed by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 (96), CPT Army Promotion Selection Board, did not contain copies of his Marine Corps Fitness Reports or any translation of that performance into Army format. He states that the promotion board was unable to weigh his entire military service through the file presented, and he was told that he needed Army Officer Efficiency Reports(OER) to be promoted. In support of his application, he submits a packet containing an explanation the lack of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and a copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Army and he is assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia. He holds rank of CPT and his branch specialty is Aviation.
On 29 March 1996, the applicant submitted a letter to the President of the
FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board, in which he provided a brief history of his prior service in the Marine Corps which contained information that was missing from his ORB, and an explanation for why this information was not in his record. Included with his letter to the board was a memorandum from the Commanding General (CG), Fort Rucker, Alabama, which further clarified why the applicant’s record did not contain an Army OER and explained the circumstances of the applicant’s transfer from the Marine Corps to the Army.
The applicant was considered for promotion by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board, and was not selected for promotion. However, he was selected for promotion to CPT by the FY 97 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Promotions Branch, US Army Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). This PERSCOM promotion official states that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board that convened on 30 April 1996 and recessed on 25 June 2002. The applicant requested promotion reconsideration on 25 June 2002, and this request was denied by PERSCOM on 12 August 2002.
This PERSCOM official further explains that the basis for the PERSCOM denial of the applicant’s reconsideration request was that his promotion board file contained the Marine Corps Fitness reports and the Academic Evaluation Report (AER) he claimed were missing. This resulted in a determination that there was no material error in his record. Therefore, he failed to satisfy the legal and regulatory requirements for promotion reconsideration before a SSB. It was finally opined that the applicant provided no new additional information to warrant promotion reconsideration and recommends that his application to this Board be denied.
A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he responded on 21 October 2002. He states that the ORB that was reviewed by the FY 96 CPT Army Promotion Selection Board was missing the following information: his second lieutenant permanent date of rank; the type of his original appointment; all his Marine Corps schools; two Marine Corps awards; previous Marine Corps assignments; and his prior service time. He claims that he understands that the ORB information and content are the responsibility of the officer. However, the errors in his ORB resulted from his not receiving guidance or assistance in the updating of information upon his arrival in the Army from the Marine Corps, and the failure of his branch manager to update his ORB before it was reviewed by the promotion board. He states that he was told to take a photo and to make sure information on his ORB was correct. In an attempt to update his ORB, the codes for the Marine Corps Schools could not be found and his branch manager would not update his ORB with the information from his separation document (DD Form 214).
The applicant further contends that the microfiche provided to the promotion board was of poor quality. Although the promotion board was not provided any hard copies of his Marine Corps Fitness Reports, the microfiche provided was such poor quality that the performance information contained therein was difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve. He also states that his branch manager told him that his non-selection was a result of his not having Army OER’s, but his file did contain an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) from flight school. He now believes that not having Army OERS was used as a prejudice against him. Finally, he states that he now believes that the promotion board was provided poor quality microfiche and incomplete records that did not represent his accomplishments and experience in the military to that date.
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.
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. The Board notes that the contention of the applicant that his DOR should be adjusted from 1 October 1997 to 1 October 1996. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
| CASE ID | AR2002078025 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0500 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013215
The file contained a memorandum for record (MFR) relating to a successful Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) appeal of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) as a first lieutenant (1LT). She provides: * A self-authored statement * An IG letter, dated 2 July 2013 * Numerous email * Memorandum, Subject: SSB Validation Panel Results FY12, LTC Army OS, dated 10 December 2012 * Promotion board files for FY11, FY12, and FY13 * Officer Record Brief (ORB) CONSIDERATION OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091048C070212
Counsel states that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) corrected the applicant's Officer Evaluation Report (OER); however, the Officer Special Review Board (ORSB) refused to submit his records before a SSB. In a 10 October 2002 letter to this Board, the applicant's former senior rater, Col Sh, stated that he had discussed the writing of the OER with his peers at Fort Drum and the Transportation Branch at PERSCOM, and that it was his intent to provide an OER that would support his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089380C070403
In support of his application, the applicant submitted, in addition to his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, an over two-page memorandum, dated 11 April 2003, to the Board outlining his contentions and requesting that PERSCOM be directed to correct his records and that he be reconsidered for promotion to major; a copy of a memorandum he submitted to the Staff Judge Advocate, US Army Combined Arms Support Command and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, Virginia, and the Commandant,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018878.
The applicant requests reconsideration for promotion to major (MAJ)/O-4, Judge Advocate General's Corp (JAGC) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for a missing DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER). The applicant provided a memorandum from his senior rater to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 10 August 2012, requesting that an SSB for reconsideration of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085330C070212
Counsel states that the applicant was unlawfully non-selected for promotion to LTC by two Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) convening in December 2000 and May 2001 under 1998 and 1999 criteria, when the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) failed to properly expunge derogatory documents from his official military personnel file (OMPF) microfiche. The applicant appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 1 August 1995 to be retained on active duty as an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003013
The applicant requests, in effect, an exception to policy for his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 16 May 2009 through 13 September 2012 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) to be accepted for inclusion in his board file for reconsideration for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB). However Mr. JD (DA Promotions Branch) regretfully informed him that he cannot initiate an SSB until the ABCMR makes an exception to the contested OER which was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003351
On 15 February 2012, officials from the HRC Promotions Branch dispatched an email to the applicant regarding his request for promotion reconsideration and informed him that his request could not be granted because a Promotion Board Panel viewed the document he claimed was missing from his Promotion Board File (PBF). The advisory official opined that a review of the applicant's official record shows the OER in question was available for review by the selection board and verified through the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052779C070420
The applicant states, in effect, error of improper instructions to the promotion boards and an illegible microfiche presented to the boards seriously prejudiced him, resulting in material unfairness and denied rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. He further states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should grant relief in the form of reconsideration for promotion to COL by SSB’s, and rewriting paragraph G-4(3) in the instructions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020120
The applicant states, in October 2010 she updated her Officer Record Brief and Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for the Fiscal Year 2011 CPT promotion board. It states an SSB may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned officers for promotion when Headquarters, Department of the Army discovers one or more of the following: an officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error, including officers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058639C070421
The OSRB contacted the applicant’s career branch manager and determined that there was no record of the applicant requesting a copy of her OMPF to review and correct before the promotion board met. Information at branch indicates that several problems with the applicant’s records were noted prior to the February 2000 promotion board but Branch did not call her at the time. It appears that she attempted to make some corrections to her records in September 1999, several months prior to the 8...