RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050011650


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose A. Martinez              |     |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 promotion reconsideration to Colonel, O-6 under
the fiscal year 2003 (FY03) criteria.

2.  The applicant states his promotion packet did not have his Joint
service annotated when it went before the FY03 O-6 promotion selection
board.  That error resulted in the promotion board reviewing an incomplete
file and not allowing his packet to receive proper consideration as a Joint-
qualified officer.

3.  The applicant states the error was very similar to the error that
occurred with the FY02 O-6 promotion selection board.  In the FY02
incident, the board determined that "because of an administrative error,
some information provided to the panel concerning the joint service or
experience of some officers was incomplete.  Reconvening the boards is
necessary to ensure every eligible (emphasis in the original) officer
receives proper consideration.  Reconvening selection boards is unusual,
but not unprecedented."

4.  The applicant states he was assigned to a Joint Duty Assignment List
(JDAL) position with the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG)
from April 1998 to June 2001.  During the summer of 1998, officers assigned
to the DODIG were informed the Joint positions had lost their JDAL status
during the latest review.  However, they were also informed that if they
were on orders to the IG or assigned to the IG prior to the deletion they
would receive credit for their Joint assignment.  He met that standard;
however, his records were not annotated to show he held a Joint assignment.


5.  The applicant states he requested promotion reconsideration from the
Special Review Board (SRB), but the SRB initially cited the incorrect
Officer Record Brief (ORB) as the basis for his request and stated there
was no evidence of an effort on his part to review his file prior to the
convening of the promotion board.  He reapplied to the SRB and provided
additional evidence to show he had reviewed his ORB.  The SRB acknowledged
he had executed reasonable diligence when reviewing his ORB.  The SRB also
acknowledged he had the right to expect that whatever the outcome of the
promotion board, it would have been based on his complete record but that
expectation was partially denied due to the administrative error of the ORB
not listing additional skill identifier "3A" (indicating Joint-qualified).
However, the SRB then rationalized that, since the selection rate of Joint
duty officers was higher (55.5 percent) than the overall selection rate
(52.6 percent), the error was not a major discriminator.

6.  The applicant provides a portion of his FY03 promotion packet (ORB,
Voter Completion Sheet, Officer Evaluation Report for the period ending 23
May 2003, and photograph); the memorandum of instructions (MOI) dated 1
July 2003 for the FY03 O-6 promotion board; a U. S. Army News Release dated
3 January 2003; orders assigning him to the DODIG; a memorandum for record
(MFR) dated 22 March 2005; a U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM)
memorandum dated 16 November 2000; an Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Force Management Policy (ASD, FMP) memorandum dated 3 February
1998; a memorandum from the applicant to the U. S. Army Human Resources
Command (USAHRC, formerly PERSCOM) dated 10 May 2004 with two emails (dated
31 March 2004 and 4 May 2004 attached); the SRB's 29 September 2004
memorandum, Subject:  Request for Promotion Reconsideration; an MFR dated
25 October 2004 from the Chief, Aviation Branch, USAHRC; a 1 December 2004
memorandum from the applicant to USAHRC; and the SRB's memorandum dated 31
January 2005 regarding the applicant's further request for reconsideration
with USAHRC's 8 February 2005 memorandum forwarding the SRB's memorandum to
the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the U. S. Army
Reserve on 21 December 1981.  He entered active duty on 15 September 1982.
He was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 1 May 1999.

2.  On orders dated 2 February 1998, the applicant was assigned to the
DODIG with a reporting date of 27 April 1998.

3.  The ASD, FMP memorandum dated 3 February 1998 stated in pertinent part
that officers who had been issued valid written orders to billets that were
subsequently identified for deletion from the JDAL would be allowed to
continue on track for those orders and receive joint duty credit in that
assignment.  The written orders must have been issued prior to the
effective date of the ASD, FMP memorandum deleting the billet from the
JDAL.  The officer must have had a report date of not later than 6 months
from the date of the ASD, FMP memorandum.  The Joint Staff would delay
deleting the billet from the JDAL until the individual officer subsequently
departed the assignment or his scheduled rotation date, whichever occurred
first.

4.  By memorandum dated 16 November 2000, Subject:  Request for Joint Flag
Action/Record of Joint Tour, one branch in PERSCOM requested the Joint
Management Section, PERSCOM remove a flag on the applicant so he could be
reassigned.  The Joint Management Section returned the memorandum
annotated, "Not joint."

5.  The applicant departed the DODIG assignment around June 2001.
6.  A U. S. Army News Release dated 3 January 2003 stated the Secretary of
the Army had approved a recommendation to reconvene the four FY02 non-
special branches Colonel promotion selection boards.  After the boards had
recessed, a review revealed that, because of an administrative error, some
information provided to the panel concerning the joint service or
experience of some officers was incomplete.

7.  The MOI for the FY03 Colonel promotion selection board informed the
president and members that Title 10, U. S. Code, and DOD directives
establish an important objective that the qualifications of officers
assigned to joint duty positions be such that they are expected to be
selected at a rate not less than that of their peers in comparable Service
positions.  Boards would identify the categories of officers (who were
serving in, or had served in, joint duty assignments) from information
annotated on the voter completion sheet of the individual board file.

8.  The applicant's voter completion sheet for the FY03 Colonel promotion
selection board was not annotated to show he had served in a joint duty
assignment.  The ORB seen by the promotion board did not indicate he had
served in a joint duty assignment.

9.  By email dated 31 March 2004, the program analyst, Joint Officer
Management, Joint Manpower Division, J1, Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated
the applicant was nominated/accepted for the DODIG Joint position prior to
validation board #10 convening on 12 March 1998 [and deleting the position
from the JDAL].  By email dated 4 May 2004, USAHRC informed the applicant
his record had been updated and he was awarded his Joint duty identifier
3A.

10.  In May 2004, the applicant requested promotion reconsideration due to
a material error in his file; i.e., the fact his file did not record he had
served in a Joint duty position.

11.  In September 2004, the SRB determined the applicant did serve in a
Joint duty position with the DODIG from 1 April 1998 through 1 June 2001
but was not awarded Joint credit until May 2004.  The SRB found the
applicant did not pursue the error until December 2003 and found no
evidence of an effort to conduct a file review prior to the convening of
the board.  The SRB noted the applicant had the right to expect that,
whatever the outcome of the promotion board, it would have been based on
his complete record.  However, the SRB believed that expectation was denied
through the applicant's own failure to exercise due diligence.

12.  The applicant applied to the SRB for further consideration.  He
provided a memorandum from the Chief, Aviation Branch who confirmed the
applicant had reviewed his records prior to the convening of the board.
The Chief, Aviation Branch stated the fact the applicant's ORB did not
reflect the "3A" Joint identifier was not the fault of the officer but
rather a case of staffing timeliness.  In January 2005, the SRB denied the
applicant's request for promotion reconsideration, stating the addition of
[the Joint duty] information in his record would not have enhanced his
chances of promotion.

13.  The SRB had consulted with the Joint Policy Officer, Officer Personnel
Distribution, USAHRC, who briefs the promotion boards on joint policy and
reviewed the written instructions to the board.  The SRB noted there were
no instructions to give special consideration to those with Joint skill
identifiers during the first phase of board deliberation.  The intent of
the briefing on Joint service is to ensure those with Joint experience get
appropriate consideration in the board and are promoted as a group at not
less than the rate for other officers in the same competitive category.  If
Joint duty objectives are not met in any category, the board reviews the
files of officers in that category who were considered not fully qualified
for selection.  Appropriate consideration is then given to the performance
of officers who served in Joint assignments.  If appropriate consideration
was not given, the board revotes the officer's record and adjusts the
standing of any officer whose score changed as a result of the revote.  In
this case, the promotion board exceeded its goal for Joint officers so
there was no need to revisit the selection rate for Joint officers.

14.  The SRB determined the applicant's missing Joint skill identifier
would not have reasonably altered the outcome of the board and therefore
would not have reasonably increased his chances of promotion.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) states, in pertinent
part, an SSB may be convened when the board that considered an officer
acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary) or did
not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary).  A
material error is defined as being of such a nature that, in the judgment
of the reviewing official (or body), had it been corrected at the time the
individual was considered by the board that failed to recommend him or her
for promotion, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the
individual would have been selected for promotion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears the applicant pursued all reasonable diligence in reviewing
his records before the FY03 Colonel promotion selection board convened.  He
knew he had been assigned to a Joint position.  It appears he knew the
position had been removed from the JDAL shortly after he was assigned.  It
is not sure he was aware the 3 February 1998 ASD, FMP memorandum allowed
him to receive Joint duty credit in that assignment.  After all, it appears
that in November 2000 the Joint Management Section at PERSCOM was not aware
he was to receive Joint duty credit.  Therefore, it is questionable he
would have been aware his ORB was incorrect in not indicating a Joint
assignment when he reviewed it prior to the promotion selection board.

2.  The SRB's argument that the primary intent of the briefing on Joint
service to promotion selection boards is to ensure those with joint
experience are promoted as a group at a rate not less than for other
officers in the same competitive category is understood.  In the FY03
Colonel promotion selection board officers with Joint experience were
selected at a slightly higher rate than other officers.

3.  Nevertheless, the SRB also noted that another intent of the briefing
was to ensure those with Joint experience got appropriate consideration in
the board.  It is clear the applicant did not get that appropriate
consideration because neither his ORB nor, more in the eyesight of board
members, was his voter completion sheet annotated that he had joint
experience.

4.  Whether or not the showing of his Joint experience on the applicant's
ORB and voter completion sheet would have resulted in a reasonable chance
he would have been selected for promotion is speculative.  However, this
Board believes any reasonable doubt should be resolved in his favor and
that his records should be considered by an SSB under the criteria of the
FY03 Colonel promotion selection board.

BOARD VOTE:

__jea___  __jam___  __lmd___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board for
reconsideration for promotion to Colonel under the Fiscal Year 2003
criteria.




                                  __James E. Anderholm__
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011650                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051025                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.11                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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