| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | ||
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member |
2. The applicant requests promotion reconsideration to the rank of colonel under the criteria used by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Colonel Dental Corps Promotion Selection Board.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he has been unjustly denied promotion reconsideration by the Officer Special Selection Board (OSRB) because that board incorrectly opined that he had not exercised due diligence to ensure that his record was up to date before the promotion board convened. He continues by stating that he did in fact check his records and made a trip to see his officials in his branch at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) prior to the board convening. However, at the time, neither himself nor officials in his branch recognized that an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period of 18 December 1990 through 21 August 1991 was missing from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). He goes on to state that he was not selected by that board and it was not until an astute board member on the FY2001 selection board recognized that there was period missing that it was discovered that the original OER was in his branch file and had not been placed on his microfiche. Consequently, he was selected by that board for promotion to the rank of colonel, above the zone. He also states that given the number of times that his records have been reviewed by selection boards and himself, it is easy to see how one missing document can escape detection. He further states that he should be afforded the opportunity for reconsideration because he did exercise due diligence and made the effort to ensure his records were accurate and complete.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve (USAR) second lieutenant on 17 May 1980, upon graduation from Virginia Military Institute. He entered active duty in the rank of captain on 19 June 1984 as a Dental Corps officer. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 19 June 1996. He was considered for promotion to the rank of colonel by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Colonel Dental Corps Promotion Selection Board and was not selected; however, he was selected the following year by the FY2001 selection board. He was promoted to the rank of colonel on 1 October 2002.
5. On 16 September 1991, while serving in the rank of major, the applicant received a senior rater option OER; however, for reasons that are not explained in the available records, the OER was not filed in the applicant's OMPF until he was considered by the 2001 Colonel selection board. The OER covered the period from 2 December 1990 through 23 August 1991.
6. The applicant submitted a request to the OSRB for promotion reconsideration by the FY2000 Colonel Selection Board, based on the absence of the OER from his OMPF. The OSRB denied his request and opined that the applicant had not exercised reasonable diligence in discovering and attempting to correct the errors in his records prior to being considered for promotion and that the absence of the OER from his records would not have resulted in a reasonable chance of his being selected had it been present.
7. Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the policies and procedures for convening standby advisory boards. It provides, in pertinent part, that standby boards are formed to prevent an injustice to officers who were eligible for promotion but whose records contained a material error when reviewed by the selection board or were failed to be reviewed. A material error is defined in that regulation as one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official or reviewing body, caused an individual’s nonselection by a promotion board. Had such errors been corrected at the time the individual been considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion. Headquarters will normally not determine that a material error existed if the administrative error was immaterial, if the officer exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered the error or omission, or if the officer could have taken timely corrective action by notifying officials at the Department of the error and providing any relevant documentation.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although this Board does not have the ability to determine if a reasonable chance existed for the applicant to be selected had the OER in question been properly filed in his OMPF, it is reasonable to presume, given his selection the following year that such was the case.
2. The Board also notes that while the applicant should have been aware that an OER was missing from his OMPF, the same burden fell on the Department to ensure that all periods of service were covered by an evaluation report of some type or that the period was deemed non-rated time.
3. The Board further notes that the OER in question was intended to be reviewed by the Board that considered him for promotion to the rank of LTC; however, the Department failed to properly process the report and file it in his OMPF. Given the importance placed on the OER by the Department, the Board finds that the omission of an OER is a significant material error and that the burden of discovering such an error is equally shared between the applicant and the Department.
4. Accordingly, the Board finds that in fairness to all concerned, it would be in the interest of justice for the applicant to receive promotion reconsideration to the rank of colonel under the same instructions followed by the FY2000 Colonel Dental Corps Selection Board.
5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by placing the applicant's records before a special selection board for consideration for promotion to the rank of colonel under the same instructions followed by the FY2000 Colonel Dental Corps Promotion Selection Board and if selected, that he be given the appropriate date of rank, back pay and allowances commensurate with his selection.
BOARD VOTE:
___slp __ ___tap___ __wtm __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Shirley L. Powell____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003086725 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/09/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000/SSB |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071768C070403
It was noted that promotion reconsideration is approved only for non-selected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. The evidence of record shows the applicant's 2LT OERs were in his file when he was promoted to first lieutenant, captain, and major; however, there is no evidence that the 2LT OERs impacted negatively on those promotions. After a thorough review of the applicant's file, the Board concluded that there was no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067946C070402
The “THRU” date of the applicant’s report was 4 June 2000. The applicant’s OER arrived on 15 September 2000 and was not seen by the board. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by granting the individual concerned promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board using the criteria for the FY2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board and including the OER for the period 19990605-20000604 in the record to be considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090470C070212
The applicant states, in effect, that she should receive promotion reconsideration to the rank of LTC because at the time the promotion selection board convened, the officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period from 21 January 2001 through 16 August 2001 was not in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) at the time the Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02) promotion selection board convened on 26 February 2002. The evidence of record shows that she had already received two COM reports in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077378C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his OER’S for the periods of 12 September 1996 through 11 September 1997 and 12 September 1997 through 11 September 1998 were not completed until 25 August 1999, that his rating chain was improper because he was never assigned to the 88 th Regional Support Command (RSC), that none of the requirements of Army Regulation 623-105 were complied with, that he was twice non-selected for promotion to LTC because neither the OER’s or a statement of non-rated time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070491C070402
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. The applicant states, in effect, that the decision of the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB), that the absence of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period 1 October 1997 through 13 February 1998, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), did not constitute a material error that warranted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004313C070208
On 24 March 2003, the applicant requested that her record be reviewed by a SSB due to a material error that existed at the time her OMPF was reviewed by the PSB. The evidence of record confirms that OSRB considered and denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration by a SSB under the FY03 PSB criteria after concluding that the applicant could have corrected the material error in question had she exercised due diligence in reviewing her records. Had there been any evidence that the...
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 | CY2009 | 20090004278
Paragraph 3-19c, Army Regulation 135-155, states these boards (promotion advisory boards/special selection boards) are convened to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion but whose records through error were not submitted to a mandatory promotion selection board for consideration or contained a material error when reviewed by the mandatory selection board. Paragraph 3-19d(2), Army Regulation 135-155, states that records of officers or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079131C070215
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. 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. That if he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008282C070206
The applicant provides supporting evidence through counsel. Counsel requests the duty description on the applicant's officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 6 July 2002 through 5 July 2003 [hereafter referred to as the contested report] be changed by adding the duty titles "Chief, Pediatric Cardiology Services" and "Assistant Chief for Administrative Services, Department of Pediatrics." Counsel stated that, because the 2003 Department of the Army Promotion Board did not have an...