RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           17 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000065


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, reconsideration for promotion to
colonel (COL) by Special Selection Board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her Official Military Personnel
File (OMPF) microfiche that was reviewed by the Fiscal Year 2001 (FY01) COL
Medical Service Corps (MSC) Promotion Selection Board (PSB) contained two
material errors.  Upon discovery of these errors she requested promotion
reconsideration through Human Resources Command (HRC) as outlined in the
governing regulation.  Her reconsideration request was initially denied on
7 May 2002 and a second reconsideration request was denied on 11 December
2003.

3.  The applicant claims that the justification for her request for
promotion reconsideration by a SSB is that her military record reviewed by
the PSB contained one critical omission and incorrect information.  The
omission was of a certificate reflecting her Diplomate status in the
American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) that was erroneously
removed from her OMPF after she had reviewed her records for the promotion
board.

4.  The applicant states that the second error in her record was an
inaccurate and incorrect abbreviation for the Navy Meritorious Unit
Commendation Medal (NMUC).  This award was erroneously recorded on her
Officer Record Brief (ORB) with the abbreviation NUC, which reflects award
of the Navy Unit Commendation Medal, a lesser award.

5.  The applicant provides a self-authored memorandum with the following
11 enclosures:  OMPF Microfiche; HRC Chief Promotions Branch Memorandum,
dated 13 May 2002; HRC Deputy Chief Promotions Branch Memorandum, dated 11
December 2003; ACHE Diplomate Certificate; ACHE Diplomate Examination
Requirements; Surgeon General Congratulatory Letter; MSC Chief Message; MSC
Assistant Chief Message; Administrative Consultant to Surgeon General
Message; MSC HRC Consultant Letter; and Extracts of Department of the Army
(DA) Memorandum 600-2.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows she was appointed a second lieutenant in
the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 10 May 1980 and entered active
duty in that status on 7 July 1980.  She has continuously served on active
duty through the present and was promoted to his current rank of lieutenant
colonel (LTC) on 1 August 1997.

2.  The applicant’s performance history shows that on the eight Officer
Evaluation Reports (OERs) she has received as a LTC, six were center of
mass (COM) reports and 2 were above center of mass reports (ACOM).

3.  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by the FY01
COL MSC PSB.  On 12 March 2002, the applicant requested that her record be
reviewed by a SSB due to a material error that existed at the time her
record was reviewed by the promotion board.  She claimed that the
certificate showing she attained Diplomate status in the ACHE disappeared
from her OMPF before the PSB convened.  She claimed the certificate had
previously been on her microfiche.

4.  On 18 March 2002, the commander of the Army Medical Department Activity
(MEDDAC), Fort Knox, Kentucky, the applicant’s commander provided a
memorandum supporting the applicant’s request for promotion
reconsideration.  The MEDDAC commander’s memorandum indicated that it was
utterly baffling to many who knew the applicant when she was not selected
for promotion.  Further, it indicated the applicant was a stellar officer
with an impeccable record and her commitment and service to the Army are
evident in her record and even more evident in her person.

5.  On 7 May 2002, the President, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
(DCSPER), Special Review Boards, notified the HRC Chief of Promotions
Branch that a decision had been made that promotion reconsideration was not
warranted in the applicant’s case.  He indicated that the Officer Special
Review Board (OSRB) determined that the addition of the certificate in
question did not change the overall quality of the applicant’s file.  It
further stated that the PSB was primarily focused on performance.
6.  On 21 November 2003, the applicant again requested promotion
reconsideration by a SSB.  In this request, the applicant indicated that
her ORB contained an incorrect abbreviation to document her receipt of the
Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation Medal.  The abbreviation on her ORB was
NUC, which stood for the Navy Unit Commendation, a lesser award.  The
abbreviation that should have been entered on her ORB for the award she
received was NMUC.

7.  On 11 December 2003, the Chief, Promotions Branch notified the
applicant that her request for promotion reconsideration was disapproved.
He indicated that the ORB reviewed by the promotion board was reviewed by
the applicant, who had the ability to make pen and ink changes, or she had
the option to submit a written memorandum to the President of the promotion
board.  Further, the absence of awards and decorations below the Silver
Star are not a basis for promotion reconsideration.

8.  In connection with the processing of this case, a member of the Board
staff coordinated with the HRC Promotions Branch and obtained the results
of the FY02, FY03 and FY04 COL MSC PSBs.  The applicant was considered and
not selected for promotion by each of these boards.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the Army’s policies and procedures on
officer promotions.  Chapter 7 contains guidance on promotion
reconsideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB).  It states, in
pertinent part, that officers may be reconsidered for promotion at the
discretion of HQDA promotion officials when it is discovered that the
officer was not considered by a regularly scheduled board because of
administrative error; the board that considered the acted contrary to law
or made a material error; or the board that considered an officer did not
have before it some material information.

10.  Paragraph 7-11 provides the rules for processing requests for SSB
promotion reconsideration.  It states, in pertinent part, that officers who
discover that material error existed in their file at the time they were
nonselected for promotion may request reconsideration.  However,
reconsideration will normally not be granted when the error is minor.  It
further stipulates the a case will not be referred to an SSB based letters
of appreciation, commendation, or other commendatory data for awards below
the Silver Star that are missing from the officer's OMPF.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the record reviewed by the FY01
promotion board contained two material errors that are significant enough
to support reconsideration by a SSB was carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that OSRB considered and denied the
applicant’s request for reconsideration by a SSB under the FY01 promotion
board criteria after concluding that the addition of the certificate in
question would not change the overall quality of the applicant’s file and
that the PSB was primarily focused on performance.  HRC officials denied
the applicant’s second SSB request because the award in question was below
the Silver Star.

3.  A careful review of the applicant’s record confirms that while the
applicant’s performance was outstanding, she was considered and not
selected for promotion to COL by the FY02, FY03 and FY04 MSC PSBs.  These
nonselections occurred subsequent to the correction of the errors in
question.  These results support the HRC determination that correction of
the minor errors in question would not significantly change the applicant’s
overall record.

4.  In view of the facts of this case, there is an insufficient evidentiary
basis to support the applicant’s promotion reconsideration by a SSB.  The
errors in question are minor in nature and there inclusion in the file
would not likely have resulted in the applicant’s selection for promotion
by the FY01 COL MSC PSB.

5.  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.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JI ___  __TDH __  __MBL __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




            ___Thomas D. Howard  ___
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000065                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/02/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  310  |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]