RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 APRIL 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099341


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Frank C. Jones II             |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to be
placed before a Special Selection Board and reconsidered for promotion to
lieutenant colonel under the criteria used by the Fiscal Year 2002
lieutenant colonel selection board.

2.  He also requests that his Career Field Designation (CFD) be changed
from Functional Area (FA) 39 (Psychological Operations and Civil Affairs)
to FA43 (Human Resource Management), retroactive to the date he was
initially placed in FA39.

3.  Additionally, the applicant is requesting that documents associated
with specific human relations training items, that he requested to have
placed in his file prior to the Fiscal Year 2002 lieutenant colonel
selection board, be entered in his records prior to consideration by a
Special Selection Board.

4.  The applicant essentially raises the same arguments, which were raised
in his initial application to the Board.  However, he provides
documentation to support his contention that the Department of the Army
Officer Special Review Board (DAOSRB) should have concluded that a material
error did exist in his case and as such promotion reconsideration was
warranted, which was not included in his original appeal.

5.  In addition to documents which confirm that he attempted to have
specific training documents placed in his file, he also submits a copy of
the procedures for appealing the Career Field Designation, and a letter,
authored by the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Equal
Opportunity), supporting his petition to be reconsidered for promotion by a
Special Selection Board.

6.  The applicant also submits a second letter of support.  However, while
the letter is dated in October 2003, the contents of the letter are
identical to a letter by the same author which was seen by the original
Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003092367 on
22 July 2003.

2.  The documents confirm the applicant’s attempt to place training
documents in his file, the letter of support from the Acting Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Equal Opportunity), and the procedures for appealing
the Career Field Designation, constitutes new evidence, which was not
previously seen by the Board.

3.  Information available to the Board indicates that the FY02 lieutenant
colonel promotion selection board convened on 26 February 2002 and
adjourned on
29 March 2002.

4.  On 11 December 2001, the applicant informed his branch manager that he
had previously forwarded, and was forwarding several new training documents
for inclusion in his file.  A statement from the applicant’s personnel
sergeant confirms in a 1 October 2003 statement that the applicant did in
fact provide several documents to him in December 2001 for inclusion in his
file and to update his Officer Record Brief.  In addition to training
documents, the personnel sergeant indicated that the applicant also
provided an order awarding him the Joint Service Achievement Medal.

5.  An Officer Record Brief, published on 29 January 2002, failed to
indicate the training information, or that his Joint Service Achievement
Medal had been incorporated into his file.

6.  A 13 January 2003 memorandum from the President, Special Review Boards,
notifying the applicant that his request to be reconsidered for promotion
had been denied, noted that officers were required to “exercise reasonable
diligence in discovering and attempting to correct errors in the ORB
[Officer Record Brief] and OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] before
consideration by a SSB is warranted.”  It noted that it was the “individual
officer’s responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board
convenes and to notify the board in writing of possible administrative
deficiencies in them.”

7.  As noted in the Board’s original proceedings, the applicant was
notified that he had been designated into the OPCF (Operations Career
Field) FA39 on
28 January 2002 and was considered for promotion in that category by the
lieutenant colonel promotion board which convened less than a month later
on
26 February 2002.

8.  The document provided by the applicant which explained the appeals
process for the Career Field Designation (CFD) indicated that “changing the
outcome of any DA [Department of the Army] Selection Board including the
CFD Board is rare, and will only be made only under extraordinary
circumstances.”  It noted that in order for an officer to successfully
appeal the CFD the officer must “show that there was a material error in
your file that went before the board and that you have the potential to
serve in the branch of functional area that you desire.”

9.  The applicant’s CFD appeal was ultimately approved, but not until June
2002, long after the promotion board had concluded.
10.  The 13 January 2003 Special Review Boards memorandum concluded in
their denial of the applicant’s request for promotion reconsideration that
his redesignation (to FA43) “occurred over three months after the cut-off
date for the promotion board” and as such his “file was complete at the
time the board convened.”

11.  The letter of support, submitted by the Acting Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Equal Opportunity), notes that the applicant should be
reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel in FA43.  He states that
the applicant is “one of our highest performing field grade officers at the
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute [DEOMI]” and that “he is
deeply involved in our strategic, executive-level educational processes and
can clearly work complex human relations issues at the highest levels.”  He
notes the applicant is “extensively trained, highly experienced, and branch-
qualified officer in FA43 career field.”  He concludes that the applicant
“is an invaluable asset to the DEOMI and the U.S. Army and we should not
lose him before he has exhausted his potential.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence does indicate that the applicant did “exercise reasonable
diligence in discovering and attempting to correct errors in [his] ORB and
OMPF” prior to the convening of the FY02 lieutenant colonel selection
board.  His unit personnel sergeant confirmed that applicant had forwarded
documents to be placed in his file as early as December 2001.  He had an
expectation that the documents he submitted nearly 2 months prior to the
date the promotion board convened would be included in his file and as
such, he should be afforded an opportunity to have those documents placed
in his file now, as though they had been present originally.

2.  The real issue surrounding the functional area in which the applicant
was considered for promotion in FY02 stems from whether or not he should
have ever been designated in FA39.  The document outlining the procedures
for appealing the FA designation indicates that changes will be made only
when a material error existed in the original designation action.  The fact
that the applicant was successful in his appeal and his FA changed from
FA39 to FA43 is an indication that in all likelihood he should never have
been designated in FA39 and offered a persuasive enough argument that a
material error existed at the time the original designation was made.

3.  In all fairness to the applicant, had he been designated in FA43 from
the onset, he would have been considered for promotion in that arena by the
FY02 lieutenant colonel selection board.  He should not be penalized for
the timing of the Career Field Designation actions amidst the convening of
his promotion selection board.

4.  As such, it would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice,
compassion, and equity, to correct the applicant’s records to show that he
was designated in FA43 originally, rather than FA39, and that his records
be placed before a Special Selection Board to be reconsidered for promotion
to lieutenant colonel under the criteria used by the FY02 lieutenant
colonel selection board in FA43.

BOARD VOTE:

__JCH __  __LDS __  __FCJ___  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR2003092367, dated 22
July 2003.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the
Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  updating the applicant’s ORB and OMPF with the documents and
information submitted by him in December 2001;


      b.  showing that he was selected for designation in FA43 vice FA39 by
the Career Field Designation board; and


      c.  placing his records before a Special Selection Board to be
reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel under the criteria used by
the FY02 lieutenant colonel selection board in FA43.




            ____ James C. Hise______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099341                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040422                                |
|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.       |131.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |