RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003090470


         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
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson
Mr. Lawrence Foster		Member
Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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).


1. The applicant requests promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC).

2. 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. She goes on to state that in an effort to ensure that her records were up to date, she called officials to ensure that her Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Certificate (Academic Evaluation Report) was in her records and telefaxed it to them to ensure it was seen by the board. She also states that she was very concerned that everything was up to date and simply missed the fact that her last OER was missing. However, even if she had discovered it, she could not have replaced it because she did not have the report. She continues by stating that the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) unjustly denied her request for reconsideration after acknowledging that a material error existed in her records by virtue of the absence of the OER in question.

3. The applicant provides a letter from her senior rater (SR) endorsing her request for promotion reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve second lieutenant on 28 May 1986 and entered active duty on 18 June 1986 as a chemical corps officer. She was promoted to the rank of major on 1 December 1997.

2. On 25 February 2002, the applicant received an Academic Evaluation Report (AER)(DA Form 1059) for completion of the CGSC. The AER was placed in her OMPF for review by the FY02 LTC Promotion Selection Board and was appropriately annotated to reflect its review by the board that convened on 26 February 2002 and adjourned on 29 March 2002.

3. On 25 July 2002, while serving in the Pentagon, the applicant received a change of rater OER covering the period from 21 January 2001 through 16 August 2001 (7 months). The report evaluated her as a management analyst for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environments and was the third such report she had received in that assignment. She received maximum ratings from her rater and a center of mass rating from her SR. Inasmuch as both her rater and SR were Department of the Army civilians, a Department of the Army Review was conducted on 31 July 2002.

4. The applicant was not selected by the FY02 LTC Promotion Selection Board and she submitted a request for promotion reconsideration to the OSRB. The OSRB determined that the absence of the OER from the applicant's file amounted to material error; however, the applicant signed her officer record brief on 26 February 2002 validating its accuracy and could have, if exercising reasonable diligence, discovered and corrected the error in her records. The OSRB noted that the report had been deemed a COM report and deemed her request to lack sufficient merit to warrant promotion reconsideration and denied her request.

5. A review of the applicant's OER history shows that the applicant has consistently been rated as a COM officer and that she received COM ratings on all three of the evaluation reports she received in the assignment concerning the contested report. The contested report is the last of the three reports she received in that assignment before being transferred to another Department of the Army level assignment in the Pentagon, just prior to the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.

6. A review of the results of the FY03 LTC Promotion Selection List fails to show that the applicant was selected for promotion by that board as well.

7. The supporting letter from the applicant's SR indicates that he rated the applicant above center of mass (ACOM) and recommends that the report be accepted as an ACOM report. He also recommends that she be granted promotion reconsideration and added to the LTC Promotion Selection List

8. Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotions of Army commissioned officers ion active duty. It provides, in pertinent part, that a determination of material error must be established before a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion reconsideration is convened. As a matter of policy, a material error is one that, had it been corrected prior to the time an officer was considered by the board that failed to recommend him or her for promotion, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the officer would have been recommended for promotion. In determining if a material error exists, reconsideration must be warranted based on the (1) nature of the inaccuracy, (2) officer's overall record, and (3) selection rate of the promotion board convened. The regulation also states that it is the individual officer's responsibility to review his or her Officer Record Brief (ORB) and OMPF before the Board convenes and to notify the board in writing of possible administrative deficiencies in them. The officer must exercise reasonable diligence in discovering and attempting to correct errors in the ORB and OMPF before consideration by an SSB is warranted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. Although the applicant has established that the contested report was not in her OMPF at the time the promotion selection board reviewed her OMPF, she has not demonstrated that she exercised due diligence in reviewing her records at the time that she signed her ORB indicating that her records were correct and up to date.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was stationed in the proximity of the location of her OMPF and had the opportunity to ensure that her records were up to date, the evidence of record does not suggests that its absence was the resultant cause of her non-selection during the board in question.

3. The evidence of record shows that she had already received two COM reports in the same position and that the third and contested report was also deemed a COM report. Accordingly, there was no change in her performance or potential to be noted or missed by a board.

4. Although it is unfortunate that she was not selected either by the board in question but also by the board that followed, which had the benefit of reviewing not only the contested report, but another COM report in a different job, it appears that the presence of the contested report would not have resulted in a reasonable chance that she would be selected for promotion by the FY02 board.

5. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant the applicant's request for promotion reconsideration by a SSB.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

lf _____ rvo _____ mvt _____ DENY APPLICATION


The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ___Raymond V. O’Connor___
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090470
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040224
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 1043	131.1100/SSB
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.