RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            11January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004105677


      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:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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
lieutenant colonel (LTC) by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when his Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF) went before the active duty major promotion board
(during his second look), it did not include his course completion
certificate from the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSC).  He
claims it is widely understood that if an officer is not promoted by the
second consideration, chances for promotion to the next higher grade are
very slight.

3.  The applicant claims that he went through the proper steps to correct
the injustice he believes was done to him during the promotion board
consideration.  He states that he submitted a request to correct the errors
in his record to the Chief, Promotions Branch, United States Army Personnel
Command (PERSCOM) and received a denial letter from the Officer Special
Review Board (OSRB) with numerous errors in return.  He claims the OSRB
letter states he received an adverse Academic Evaluation Report (AER) for
his basic officer course (OBC), which he believes was a consideration for
the denial of his promotion reconsideration request.  He claims the AER
referred to was not his and he has never received an adverse AER during his
career.  He states that the referral to this AER in the OSRB letter
indicates a less than professional review of his request.  He states that
after he questioned the reference to the AER, he was sent a corrected copy
of the letter.  He states that in the second letter he received, it was
indicated he should have discovered the error before the promotion board
convened and that a material error must exist in order to allow a SSB.

4.  The applicant further claims that it is his belief that a material
error did exist in his record because it is widely known that the absence
of CGSC completion would result in his not being promoted to LTC.  He
further states that he did discover the CGSC certificate was not on file
prior to the convening date of the promotion board and did everything
within his power to correct the error.  He claims the bottom line is that
he did complete CGSC before the convening date of the promotion board and
because it was not graded in a timely manner, his certificate was not
properly on file in his OMPF for consideration by the promotion selection
board.

5.  The applicant provides his request for promotion consideration and the
PERSCOM response in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows he was appointed a second lieutenant in
the United States Army Reserve (USAR) and entered active duty on 12 June
1986.  He has continuously served on active duty through the present and
was promoted to his current rank of major (MAJ) on 1 October 1997.

2.  An AER, dated 24 June 2003, on file in the applicant’s OMPF confirms he
achieved course standards of the CGSC.  This document indicates the
duration of the applicant’s CGSC was from 24 July 2001 through 23 June
2003.

3.  On 22 July 2003, The Adjutant General (TAG) notified the applicant he
had been considered, but not selected for promotion to LTC by the Fiscal
Year 2003 (FY03) LTC Promotion Selection Board (PSB), which convened on 23
February 2003 and adjourned on 28 March 2003.  The applicant was also
informed that while he was not selected for promotion to LTC, the Secretary
of the Army had approved his selective continuation through completion of
24 years of active commissioned service.  The applicant accepted this
retention and remains on active duty.

4.  On 7 August 2003, the applicant requested promotion reconsideration by
a SSB based on his record not properly reflecting his completion of the
CGSC.  He explained that he had completed all the CGSC requirements three
weeks prior to the convening date of the PSB, but his papers were not
graded in a timely manner and as a result, his completion of CGSC was not
reflected in his OMPF during the promotion consideration process.

5.  On 4 November 2003, President Special Review Boards, Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, notified the Chief, Promotions Branch, PERSCOM,
that the OSRB had considered the applicant’s request and decided that his
promotion reconsideration was not warranted based on the addition of his
CGSC completion certificate and AER.  It further indicated that these
documents were not in the applicant’s OMPF for consideration by the FY03
LTC PSB because they were not issued until after the PSB adjourned on 28
March 2003.

6.  The letter further indicated that the OSRB found the absence of the
documents reflecting the applicant’s CGSC completion was due solely to the
applicant’s failure to plan and execute completion of CGSC in a timely
manner, and was not because CGSC officials did not grade his papers in a
timely manner. The OSRB noted the applicant was eligible to enroll in CGSC
as early as
11 March 1996, the date he was selected for promotion to MAJ.

7.  The OSRB further indicated that it presumed the applicant did not
immediately enroll upon his promotion to MAJ because he believed he might
be selected for the resident course.  However, when this did not occur in
1996 and in 1997, he still had ample time and a responsibility to plan his
CGSC completion sufficiently early to ensure his documentation would be
available to his LTC PSB, but he did not.  The OSRB further indicated the
applicant had the right to expect, whatever the outcome of the promotion
board, that it was based on his complete record.  The OSRB opined that this
expectation was denied solely due to the applicant’s failure to exercise
due diligence in completing CGSC in a timely manner.

8.  In its original letter, the OSRB made reference to an adverse AER the
applicant received from his OBC on 29 September 1987.  However, the
applicant’s record does not contain an adverse AER, but does contain an AER
from OBC that confirms the applicant achieved course standards and
satisfactorily completed the course.

9.  On 4 December 2003, the OSRB published a corrected letter that removed
references to an adverse AER being on file in the applicant’s record.
However, the OSRB still concluded that the applicant’s expectation that the
outcome of the PSB would be based on his complete record was denied solely
through his own failure to exercise diligence in completing the CGSC in a
timely manner.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes the Army’s officer promotion
policy.  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.  The regulation further provides examples of cases that do not
qualify for reconsideration by a SSB.  One of the cited examples is when
the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and
corrected the error in the ORB or OMPF.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he should receive promotion reconsideration
by a SSB based on the omission of his CGSC completion certificate and AER
from his record was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s CGSC completion
certificate and AER were published and issued after the PSB adjourned.  As
a result, these documents could not have been expected to be on file in his
OMPF when his record was reviewed by the PSB in question.  As a result,
there appears to be no material error that would support his promotion
reconsideration by a SSB.

3.  The applicant’s argument that he completed the CGSC requirements three
weeks prior to the date the PSB convened and that the completion
certificate and AER should have been issued in time for it to be considered
by the PSB was also considered.  However, three weeks prior does not seem
to be sufficient time to expect CGSC officials to complete the
administrative requirements necessary to issue course completion documents.
 Further, given the importance of CGSC completion to promotion, as the
applicant acknowledges, it appears he would have exercised more diligence
in completing the course prior to first being considered for promotion,
which in his case would have first occurred in 2002.

4.  Had a more significant period of time elapsed between the time the
applicant completed the CGSC requirements and the time the PSB convened,
there may have been equity considerations that would have supported his
promotion reconsideration by a SSB.  However, it was unreasonable for the
applicant to expect the CGSC course material would have been processed and
completion documents published and filed in the OMPF in the three weeks
between his completing them and the convening date of the PSB.

5.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was eligible to enroll in
CGSC in 1996 and he did not actually enroll until 2001.  Given he waited
five years to enroll and only completed the requirements three weeks prior
to the convening date of the second PSB that would consider him for
promotion to LTC, it appears the OSRB conclusion that he failed to exercise
due diligence in completing the CGSC was an accurate assessment in this
case.

6.  The applicant’s claim that the denial of his promotion reconsideration
request was the result of an erroneous AER considered by the OSRB was also
considered.  However, while it is clear the OSRB referred to an erroneous
adverse AER in its first denial letter, this was not the primary factor in
the determination that no material error existed in his record, and that
there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to support his promotion
reconsideration by a SSB.

7.  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

___JTM _  __LDS __  ___CAK _  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.




            ____Linda D. Simmons ____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105677                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/01/11                              |
|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]