| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the Board. Alternatively that he be reconsidered for promotion to LTC by a special selection board. [The applicant has been informed that administrative relief regarding his contention relating to the equal opportunity instructions given to the promotion selection board is available by application to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).]
APPLICANT STATES: That he verified and corrected his records before the 1999 fiscal year (FY99) Judge Advocate (JA) LTC promotion selection board. Due to circumstances beyond his control, the selection board considered inaccurate records. He states that a sergeant submitted an incorrect copy of his Officer Record Brief (ORB). In support of his application, he submits copies of both versions of his ORB and a letter from the, then active duty, JA officer who helped him review his records.
He contends, in effect, that the incorrect assignment history shown on the Officer Record Brief that the selection board considered would have given the impression that he was, "Homesteading." That is, he was accepting non-challenging assignments in order to stay in the same geographic area.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant, a Regular Army, JA major was non-selected for promotion by the FY 99 and FY 00 promotion selection boards. He was selected for and, in 2001, accepted selective continuation on active duty.
Copies of the two versions of the ORB show that the FY 99 board considered the earlier version of his ORB.
The applicant requested administrative relief by application to the PERSCOM. The Chief Promotions Branch, informed him, in a 4 October 2000 memorandum, that reconsideration by a special selection board was not warranted because the error was not material. The members of the promotion selection board had access to his OERs which accurately reflected his assignment history.
A review of the applicant's 18 available OERs shows that he was consistently rated as exceeding standards and recommended for promotion ahead of his peers [outstanding and best qualified under the new system]. Except for four above center of mass evaluations as a senior captain, he has been exclusively, rated at the center of mass by his senior raters.
Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotion) provides that a reconsideration by a special selection board is not warranted if an administrative error was immaterial.
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. There is no available evidence to support the applicant's assumption that "Homesteading" caused his non-selection for promotion.
2. The Board carefully considered the applicant's contentions and evidence and concluded that the error was immaterial in that the promotion selection board had access to the applicant's OERs which accurately reflected his assignment history.
3. 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.
4. 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
__FNE__ __MHM__ __KAH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030916 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2001 | 2001062349C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be given a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4). Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 1.33.d, states that to be considered by a promotion board, evaluation reports for officers in the zone of consideration must be received in the Evaluation Reports Branch, PERSCOM, by the due date identified in the selection board notice. With the OER in question included in the applicant’s record, the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010479C070206
The applicant states, in effect, he was denied due course promotion to MAJ because his company command Officer Evaluation Report (OER) was not timely processed and he was not considered by the FY99 Major, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board. 99-068. e. His company command OER for the period 19980320 – 19990319, with DA Form 200 (Transmittal Record) showing the OER was shipped on 7 April 1999. f. DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 21 September 1999. g. A 10...
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 | CY2013 | 20130017269
The applicant requests removal of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Colonel (COL) Army Promotion List (APL) non-select letter from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), correction of the date of rank (DOR) and effective date of her promotion to the rank/grade of COL/O-6, correction of her mandatory retirement date (MRD) to 1 July 2017, and attendance at the Army War College in July 2014. g. The Army regulations provide that a special selection board (SSB) will not be convened to consider...
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 | 20110025012
He states his non-selection for promotion to LTC was based on the Army failing to account for his prior active duty service with the Coast Guard on his Officer Record Brief (ORB). c. He further stated that the decision to recommend an officer for promotion was based on the selection board's collective judgment as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered. The applicant has provided no evidence nor did he state in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...
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 | 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...