| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
2. The applicant requests promotion reconsideration to the rank of colonel.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was previously twice non-selected for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) and after appealing an officer evaluation report (OER), he was granted promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB), which also failed to select him for promotion. He goes on to state that he discovered that a member of the selection panels that non-selected him for promotion was his former assignment manager who had knowledge of the OER that he had appealed. Additionally, he had sat on two back to back selection boards, which was contrary to the applicable regulation. Consequently, he was again considered by a SSB and was selected for promotion to LTC. He continues by stating that the same officer sat on the selection board that non-selected him for promotion to the rank of colonel during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Judge Advocate General Corps (JAGC) Colonel Selection Board. This was the third time the same officer had been on a panel that non-selected him for promotion and he contends that as a matter of fairness and equity, and given the previous sequence of events that occurred, that officer should not have reviewed his file.
4. The applicant’s military records show that while serving as a Judge Advocate General officer on active duty, he was promoted to the rank of major on 1 May 1990.
5. In May 1995, the applicant was successful in his OER appeal to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) and was granted promotion reconsideration to the rank of LTC by a SSB. In October 1995, he was notified that he had not been selected for promotion to LTC by the SSB.
6. In July 1996, he applied to the Board for another review by a SSB because the same officer who had sat on the regular selection board also sat on the SSB. The Board denied his request.
7. The applicant was subsequently selected for promotion to the rank of LTC by a SSB in September 1996 and was promoted on 1 March 1997.
8. On 4 June 2002, the applicant appealed to the OSRB to be granted a SSB for promotion reconsideration by a SSB because the same officer who had sat on two consecutive boards that non-selected him for promotion to the rank of LTC, had also sat on the FY 2001 JAGC Colonel Selection Board and again he was non-selected. The OSRB opined that while the officer in question had improperly sat on two consecutive selection boards that considered the applicant for promotion to the rank of LTC, there was nothing which prohibited his sitting on the selection board for promotion to the rank of colonel. The OSRB denied his appeal on 23 August 2002.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-29 serves as the authority for the composition of promotion selection boards. It provides, in pertinent part, that no officer will serve on two successive selections boards for the same grade and category. That regulation also provides that no officer may be a member of two successive SSBs considering officers of the same category and grade. Further, an officer who was a member of a regular selection board may not serve on an SSB that is reconsidering the recommendations of that regular board.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the Board agrees with the assessment by the OSRB that the officer in question was not precluded from sitting on the FY01 JAGC Colonel Selection Board that considered and non-selected him for promotion to the rank of colonel, the board finds that as a matter of equity and fairness to the applicant and considering the circumstances in his case, the applicant should receive promotion reconsideration by that board.
2. While there is no evidence to suggest that the officer in question in any way tainted the selection board results or failed to properly perform his duties as a board member, the Board believes that any and all doubt can be removed from the process by granting the applicant promotion reconsideration under the same criteria used by the FY01 JAGC Colonel Selection Board.
3. In the event that he is selected for promotion, he will be promoted with an appropriate date of rank with entitlement to all back pay and allowances, or if those officers already selected have not yet been promoted, that he be assigned an appropriate sequence number.
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 submitting the records of the individual concerned, as a matter of equity, to a duly constituted special promotion selection board for promotion reconsideration to Colonel under the criteria followed by the FY2001 JAGC Colonel Selection Board that previously reviewed the individual's records, provided it was not a below the zone consideration.
2. That if he is selected for promotion, he be promoted with an appropriate date of rank with entitlement to all back pay and allowances, or if those officers already selected have not yet been promoted, that he be assigned an appropriate sequence number.
BOARD VOTE:
__jhl____ ___ym __ __rtd____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Joann H. Langston____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002079131 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/15 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 311 | 131.0100/SSB |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2009 | 20090008103
The applicant states that he believes that the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) did not thoroughly examine his appeal. He based his appeal on his improper placement as COM in his SR's profile and the fact that another OER considered by the promotion board which had a stamp on it which stated "FY01 Promotion." As for the applicant's promotion, the only other contention made by the applicant was the fact that an OER considered by the promotion board had a stamp on it which stated "FY01...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052780C070420
He was first considered for promotion to LTC by the FY 95 LTC JAGC Promotion Selection Board. The Board notes that the applicant had a group of OERs between October 1985 and January 1988 where he was rated as above center of mass. Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the officers who were recommended for promotion to LTC, JAGC were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011529
The applicant requests an expedited correction of his records as follows: a. to show he was promoted to colonel (COL) by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGC) Promotion Selection Board (PSB) with an appropriate date of rank with entitlement to back pay and allowances; b. to remove the rater's narrative comments from his 2003 officer evaluation report (OER) and provide appropriate instructions to any PSB (including any appropriate special selection boards (SSBs); c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011964
The applicant provides: * an extract of the FY15 LTC Chaplains Selection Board Results showing he was selected for promotion * DA Form 67-9 (OER) for the period 13 October 2012 through 31 March 2014 * HRC memorandum, subject: Evaluation Report Appeal, dated 21 December 2012, with his appeal documentation * HRC memorandum, subject: PRB Results, dated 28 February 2013, with supporting documentation * Army Review Boards Agency memorandum, subject: OER Appeal, dated 16 September 2013 * HRC...
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 | CY2010 | 20100009996
The applicant states that he submitted a request for an SSB to address material omissions and errors in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) as it appeared before the 12 August 2008 promotion board. Any memorandum considered by a promotion board will become a matter of record to be maintained with the records of the board. It is also noted that the applicant's OER with an end date of 4 June 2007 has been identified as having one "minor negative discrepancy" (i.e., an "X"...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076035C070215
However, he was not granted promotion reconsideration by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB). The OSRB opined, in effect, that the applicant had not exercised reasonable diligence in correcting his record before the promotion selection board convened and denied his request for reconsideration on 23 November 1999. While the Board will not attempt to assess how a selection board views the SR profile that was on the applicant’s contested OER, the fact remains that his appeal was approved...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012997
He also stated that he had no objection to his entire OMPF being considered, but would have presented other favorable information to the OSRB; e. the OSRB's consideration of the promotion rate of the FY 2007 LTC JAG Promotion Board was misleading as that board was, to the best of his knowledge, the first time that judge advocate officers competed against each other and not other specialties; therefore, the OSRB could not state what was used as discriminators by the promotion board members or...
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...