RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            31 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004313


      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. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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, promotion reconsideration by a
Special Selection Board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the last officer evaluation
report (OER) she received for the period ending on 19 June 2002 was missing
from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) when it was reviewed by
the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Major (MAJ), Medical Service Corps (MSC),
Promotion Selection Board (PSB).  She claims the OER was not on file in her
OMPF due to the excessive time it took for her command to process the
report.  As a result, PSB members did not have the opportunity to review
the OER during the selection process.  She further states that the Officer
Special Review Board (OSRB) denied her request for promotion
reconsideration by a SSB based on false allegations regarding her role in
delaying the processing of the report.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  Request for SSB Memorandum, Human Resources Command (HRC)
Denial of SSB, Request for Reconsideration of SSB Request, HRC Denial of
SSB Request Reconsideration and Timeline.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows she was appointed a second lieutenant
(2LT) Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army on 19 May 1990 and entered
active duty on 10 October 1990.  She has continuously served on active duty
through the present and was promoted to her current rank of captain (CPT)
on
1 November 1994.

2.  The applicant’s performance history shows that of the thirteen Officer
Evaluation Reports (OERs) she has received as a CPT, all but two were
center of mass (COM) reports.  The remaining two were above center of mass
(ACOM) reports.  The report in question was a COM report.

3.  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by the FY03
MAJ MSC PSB that convened on 1 October 2002 and adjourned on 11 October
2002.
4.  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.  She claimed that the transcripts from her
undergraduate degree and her last OER for the period ending 19 June 2002
were missing from her OMPF when it was reviewed by the PSB.  She indicated
that she was above the zone and made every attempt to ensure her record was
accurate and up-to-date.  She also stated that it was her belief that this
material error contributed to her
non-selection for promotion.

5.  On 20 May 2003, the President Special Review Boards, Department of the
Army (DA), Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, notified the HRC
promotion branch that the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) had made a
decision that promotion reconsideration was not warranted in the
applicant’s case.  The OSRB concluded that the applicant’s undergraduate
degree was properly recorded on her Officer Record Brief (ORB) and as a
result, there was not material error related to her transcripts not being
on file in her OMPF when it was reviewed by the PSB.

6.  The OSRB also found that the OER in question was in fact missing from
the applicant’s promotion file.  However, it also noted that the missing
OER had not been received for filing at Headquarters, Department of the
Army (HQDA) until 14 February 2003, and that the applicant had not signed
the report until 4 February 2003, which indicated the OER was not completed
until that date.  In addition, the OSRB indicated the applicant’s command
confirmed the OER was not completed until 4 February 2003, due to a
commander’s inquiry conducted in regard to the rater’s comments on the
report.

7.  The OSRB also indicated that the applicant’s organization had further
indicated that the OER was further delayed because the applicant was not
satisfied with the results of the initial commander’s inquiry, which
resulted in a follow-up review being conducted prior to finalizing the
report.  The OSRB concluded that given the OER in question was not
completed prior to the established cut-off date for filing documents in the
promotion record, it being missing from the OMPF did not constitute a basis
for promotion reconsideration based on material error.


8.  On 20 June 2003, the applicant requested reconsideration of her request
for promotion reconsideration by a SSB.  She stated that the information
regarding the date she signed the OER in question that was used by the
OSRB, which resulted in the determination that the report was completed
after the cut-off date to file documents in the promotion record, was in
error.  She claimed that she signed the completed OER in June 2002, and she
did not put the signature date on the report at the time, as is custom in
most military units.

9.  The applicant also stated that at the time she signed the report, she
did request a commander’s inquiry, but she had still never received a
formal response to this request.  She further stated that in February or
March 2003 she inquired into the status of the commander’s inquiry, and
received a response from the Commander, McDonald Army Community Hospital,
Fort Eustis, Virginia. The response was that there were no findings from
the commander’s inquiry and that the OER was fair and reasonable.

10.  The applicant further stated that she reviewed her OMPF in September
2002 and noted the OER was not on file.  However, she assumed that it would
be processed so as to meet the 24 September 2002 deadline for OER
submission.  She claimed the error or omission of this report was not due
to any fault or actions on her part.

11.  The applicant included a statement from the personnel services
noncommissioned officer in charge personnel services (NCOIC) with her
reconsideration request.  This individual indicated that the applicant and
rating officials signed the completed OER in June 2002, and that the
signature dates on the report were left blank.  Further, she claimed it was
customary for the McDonald Army Community Hospital OER clerk to date all
reports from the command prior to final processing to ensure the dates of
evaluation were subsequent to the end date of the OER.  The NCOIC further
indicated that the Commander, McDonald Army Community Hospital returned the
applicant’s OER on 3 February 2003 and gave instructions that the report be
submitted at that time.

12.  On 1 August 2003, the DA Special Review Boards President returned the
applicant’s reconsideration request to HRC Promotions Branch without
action.  He indicated that a preliminary review had been conducted on the
applicant’s request and it was determined it did not provide new
substantive evidence.  It further found the commander’s inquiry requested
by the applicant when she signed the report in June 2002 was conducted in
accordance with the applicable regulation and the OER was returned for
submission subsequent to the completion of this inquiry on 3 February 2003.


13.  The reconsideration denial further indicated that the applicant had
failed to provide new evidence to disprove the original concern that she
had failed to exercise due diligence in reviewing the OMPF prior to the
PSB.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the Army’s policies and procedures
on officer promotions.  Chapter 7 provides guidance on SSBs.  It states
that SSBs be convened under to consider or reconsider commissioned or
warrant officers for promotion when DA discovers that the officer was not
considered by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error;
the board that considered an officer acted contrary to law or made a
material error; or the board that considered the officer did not have
before it some material information.

15.  Paragraph 7-3 of the promotions regulation provides guidance on cases
that will not be considered by a SSB.  It states, in pertinent part, that a
SSB will not be authorized when it is determined that the officer, in
exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the
error in the ORB or OMPF.  The regulation stipulates that it is the
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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that she should be reconsidered for
promotion to MAJ by a SSB because her OER ending on 19 June 2002 was not on
file in the OMPF that was reviewed by the PSB and that this constitutes a
material error.  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 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.

3.  The record also confirms that the applicant signed her OER in June 2002
and requested a commander’s inquiry on the report in July 2002.  It also
shows that the applicant reviewed and signed her promotion record in
September 2002, and the OER in question was not on file in her OMPF at the
time.  The PSB convened and adjourned in October 2002.

4.  Had there been any evidence that the applicant made attempts to resolve
the commander’s inquiry prior to the convening date of the FY03 MAJ PSB,
there may have been a basis for equity relief in this case.  However, by
the applicant’s own admission, she was aware the OER in question was not in
her promotion record in September 2002 and she still made no inquiry on the
resolution of the commander’s inquiry before sometime in February or March
2003, well after the PSB adjourned.

5.  In view of the facts of this case, it appears the OSRB determinations
that the commander’s inquiry requested by the applicant was conducted in
accordance with the applicable regulation and that the applicant failed to
exercise due diligence in ensuring her promotion record was complete prior
to consideration by the PSB are valid.  Therefore, there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

6.  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

___WDP   ___RJW__  ___LGH_  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.




            ____William D. Powers____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004313                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-03-31                              |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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