| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | |
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was promoted to colonel.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was unjustly passed over for promotion to the rank of colonel. In support of his application, he submitted a supplemental letter; several U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Reports covering the periods 1 April 1962 through 24 December 1972; and three letters of recommendation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having prior service in the Regular Army as an enlisted soldier, he was appointed as a commissioned officer in the Army of the United States (AUS) on 17 October 1944.
He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the AUS with an effective date of 18 June 1962.
He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Regular Army with an effective date of 17 October 1965.
The applicant retired on 18 January 1973 in the rank of lieutenant colonel.
Section III of Army Regulation 624-100 (Promotion of Officers on Active Duty), in effect at the time, governed the promotion to colonel, lieutenant colonel, major, captain, and to chief warrant officer grades W-4 and W-3. It stated, in pertinent part, that promotion selection boards based their selections on impartial consideration of all officers in the zone. They considered all factors, including ability, efficiency, seniority, and age. Selection boards used the "best qualified" method of selection for promotion to major through colonel (except for temporary promotion of Medical and Dental Corps Officers to major and lieutenant colonel), and to chief warrant officers, W-4 and chief warrant officers, W-3. Under this method, selection boards recommended not to exceed a specified number of officers whom they considered the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army of all fully qualified officers in the zone of consideration.
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. 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.
2. Without being able to review all the records or special instructions that were available to the promotion boards that considered the applicant, the Board cannot determine why he was not selected for promotion. Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the officers who were recommended for promotion to colonel were, in the promotion boards' considered opinion, the best qualified.
3. 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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002083174 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030814 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082001C070215
He was appointed a second lieutenant in the USAR on 28 August 1952, and continuously served in the USAR until being transferred to the Retired Reserve, in the rank of LTC, on 27 September 1980. Although DA insists that his records that went before the 1979 PSB were complete, he considers it an injustice that the promotion board members could not recognize the fact that he, an officer recognized by DA as qualified for promotion, would not be eligible to go before a later convened board and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008844
Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicant be reconsidered for promotion by a new SSB, and if promotion is denied, that he be provided the rationale for his non-selection. Counsel's contention that the applicant is entitled to promotion reconsideration by a second SSB because he was not provided a full explanation of why he was not selected by the SSB in 2003, and the supporting evidence he provided, were carefully considered. In the applicant's case, the "best qualified" method was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058641C070421
In the alternate, he requests that he be considered for promotion by a special selection board, with instructions to that board that no adverse implication was to be construed by his having only two years of service in the rank of major or the number of officer evaluation reports (OERs) or types of duty assignments to date, and instructions to the board reflecting that in the absence of officer evaluation reports (OERs) during the period 1996-1998 while he was waiting for a decision on his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011013C070208
The applicant claims she has only one official military record, which would be viewed for promotion by either a RC or ADL promotion selection board, and she feels if she is qualified and selected for promotion to LTC by the RC, she should also be qualified to be promoted on the ADL. She also questions how the same military record used to select her for promotion to LTC in the RC does not result in her being qualified and selected for promotion on active duty. Paragraph 1-35 of the officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089952C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) with an effective date of the first promotion board in 1976. He claimed that the OER scores for intelligence officers were always lower than those of other branches and whenever intelligence officers were assigned to a combat unit, he/she would often be rated or indorsed by an officer from another branch. The evidence of record shows the applicant was twice nonselected for promotion to CW3 by a Department of the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014888
On 19 October 1961, the applicant was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in the rank of CPT. On 24 March 1970, the applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) in the USAR and his record shows this is the highest rank he attained and in which he served during his military service. Although the current regulation was not applicable during the period the applicant served, promotion policy has always required an officer to be identified for promotion through a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002802
Officers who were qualified for retirement could apply for voluntary retirement to be effective not later than the first day of the month following their scheduled release date. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by showing he was promoted to lieutenant colonel, pay grade O-5 because he was forced to retire in spite of his outstanding military service as a major, pay grade O-4, for his last 8 years of active duty service. The available evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085082C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM's military records show: The FSM's records show that he was promoted to Captain in the AUS with a date of appointment and a date of rank of 18 December 1951.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064926C070421
He received all "Yes" entries in Part IV (Performance Evaluation - Professionalism), "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), and "Center of Mass" in Part VII b (Senior Rater – Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated by Same Grade). In Part VII a (Senior Rater – Rated Officer's Promotion Potential), he received a check in the second block, "Fully Qualified," the first block being labeled "Best Qualified." As a result of being...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150010420
A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence of * any adverse or derogatory information related to insulting/anti-Semitic comments by his raters/indorsers/reviewers/commanders * an erroneously reported/charged period of leave * being officially recommended for or * promoted to CPT * awarded the * Legion of Merit * Bronze Star Medal * Order of Merit * award of any individual foreign decoration 17. There is no evidence of record that shows he was...