RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            27 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040011013


      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             |
|     |Ms. Lisa O. Guion                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 to lieutenant colonel
(LTC).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was promoted to LTC in the
Reserve Component (RC) in December 2000, while she was serving on active
duty in Korea.  She further states that when she queried her branch to
ascertain why she was promoted in the RC, but not on active duty list
(ADL), she was told that she did not have enough active duty time in
service.  The applicant claims she has only one official military record,
which would be viewed for promotion by either a RC or ADL promotion
selection board, and she feels if she is qualified and selected for
promotion to LTC by the RC, she should also be qualified to be promoted on
the ADL.  She states that she was unjustly denied promotion on the ADL and
no one has explained to her why her name was removed from the promotion
list.  She finally states that she should be a LTC today and that her date
of rank should be adjusted accordingly.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
request:  Officer Service Computation for Retirement (DA Form 7301), United
States Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Order Number 154-003, dated 3
June 1997; and PERSCOM-St. Louis Memorandum, dated 15 October 1996.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show she was appointed a commissioned
officer in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 9 May 1980, and that
she was promoted to major on 18 March 1996.

2.  PERSCOM Orders Number A-10-004061, dated 31 October 1996, ordered the
applicant to active duty as a three-year obligated volunteer officer,
effective 3 March 1997.  To date, she continues to serve on active duty as
a Dental Corps (DC) officer in the rank of major.

3.  The applicant's name appeared on the fiscal year 2000 LTC, RC, DC,
promotion list.  PERSCOM RC promotion records show the applicant was
erroneously considered and selected for promotion as a member of the
Reserve Active Status List (RASL); however, because she had been on active
duty for three years, she was not eligible for promotion in the RC.  As a
result, her name was removed from the RASL and her RC promotion to LTC was
not finalized.

4.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained
from the Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Deputy Chief, Promotions
Branch.  This HRC promotion official stated that the applicant was
considered, but not recommended, for promotion to LTC by the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003 and FY 2004 LTC promotion selection boards.  He
also indicated that the applicant was selected for continuation by the FY
2002 board.  The official further advises that the decision to recommend an
officer for promotion is based on the board member's collective judgment as
to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the
records of other officers being considered.  He finally states that
promotion boards are prohibited by law from divulging the reasons for
selection or nonselection of any officer.

5.  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the HRC advisory opinion and
questions how her promotion to LTC in the RC could be negated.  She also
questions how the same military record used to select her for promotion to
LTC in the RC does not result in her being qualified and selected for
promotion on active duty.  She claims removing her from the RC promotion
list was not in accordance with regulatory guidance because she was never
notified of the removal and further insists that she met the criteria for
promotion to LTC on the ADL and should be promoted immediately.

6.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the
promotion of Reserve Officers.  Paragraph 3-18 provides guidance on the
removal of an officer's name from the promotion list.  It states, in
effect, that the Commander, PERSCOM, Office of Promotions will verify an
officer’s ineligibility and take action to remove the officer if she was
not on the RASL at the time of consideration for promotion.  Paragraph 4-11
states, in effect, that an officer who has been recommended for promotion
to the next higher grade must be on the RASL before being promoted in the
RC.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes policy and procedures for the
promotion of Regular Army Officers.  Paragraph 1-14a provides for selective
continuation and it states, in pertinent part, Army Medical and Dental
(AMEDD) officers on the ADL who were twice not selected for promotion to
major or LTC, may be voluntarily or in accordance with specific provisions
of a service grant, continued on active duty to fulfill an AD service
obligation.

8.  Paragraph 1-35 of the officer promotion regulation contains guidance on
selection board recommendations.  It states that promotion selection boards
will base their recommendations on impartial consideration of all officers
in the zone of consideration as instructed in the memorandum of
instruction; and keep confidential their reasons for recommending or not
recommending any officer considered.  If further states, in pertinent part,
that the law requires that officers recommended for promotion be "best
qualified".  The "best qualified" method is used when the board must
recommend fewer than the total number of officers to be considered for
promotion.  However, no officer will be recommended under this method
unless a majority of the board determines that he or she is fully qualified
for promotion.  As specified in the MOI for the applicable board, officers
will be recommended for promotion to meet specific branch, functional area
or skill requirements if fully qualified for promotion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that she should be promoted to LTC on the
ADL because she was promoted to LTC on the RC list and her name was
inappropriately removed from the RC promotion list and the supporting
documents she submitted were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support these claims.

2.  By regulation, officers not on the RASL are not eligible for promotion
in the RC.  Therefore, the applicant’s consideration and selection for
promotion to LTC in the RC was erroneous and she was properly removed from
the RC promotion list in accordance with the governing law and requlation

3.  The applicant was on the ADL for 3 years at the time she was
erroneously considered for promotion to LTC in the RC.  She was
appropriately considered for promotion on the ADL by the FY 2001, FY 2002,
FY 2003 and FY 2004 ADL, DC, LTC promotion selection boards.  Unfortunately
she was not selected for promotion under the “best qualified” selection
criteria used by these boards.  This does not mean she was not qualified
for promotion, it simply means the promotion selection boards found the
number of officers it could promote in the zone of consideration better
qualified than her.

4.  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 request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___REB _  ___LF  __  __LMD__  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.




            ____Ronald E. Blakely____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011013                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |NA                                      |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |NA                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |NA                                      |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NA                                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |NA                                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |




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

[pic]