RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            30 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060003056


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Crain                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald Lewy                   |     |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 that his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the
ranks of captain (CPT) and major (MAJ) be adjusted to earlier dates.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes that three officer
evaluation reports (OER) ending on 28 June 1991, 25 September 1992 and 16
April 1993 were not properly reviewed by the appropriate promotion
selections boards which resulted in his promotions being delayed.
Accordingly, he believes that he is entitled to have his DOR for promotion
to the ranks of CPT and MAJ adjusted to an earlier date.  He also states
that the selection and non-selection memorandums were confusing and that he
believes that officials at the Human Resources Command – St Louis (HRC-STL)
mishandled his OERs and that resulted in his delayed selections for
promotion.

3.  The applicant provides and explanation of his application, copies of
the OERs in question, his promotion memorandum for promotion to CPT and his
           non-selection memorandums.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on
10 November 1977 for a period of 6 years, under the Delayed Entry Program
(DEP). He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1977, for a period of
3 years, and training as a tactical wire operations specialist.  He
remained on active duty, was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 and on 13
June 1986, he was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant (2LT) upon
graduation from officer candidate school (OCS), with a concurrent call to
active duty as a Signal Corps officer.

2.  On 5 April 1988, he was honorably released from active duty in the rank
of 2LT, due to failure of selection for permanent promotion.  He had served
1 year, 9 months and 23 days of active commissioned service for a total of
8 years, 6 months and 14 days of total active service.  He was transferred
to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

3.  On 4 August 1989, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant from the
Total Army Personnel Command – St. Louis (now known as HRC-STL), informing
the applicant that he was non-selected for promotion to the rank of first
lieutenant (1LT).  The applicant was promoted to the rank of 1LT on 22 June
1992 with an effective date and DOR of 12 June 1989.

4.  He applied to this Board for reinstatement on active duty and on 9 May
1990, the Board denied his request for reinstatement.

5.  On 29 January 1993, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant
informing him that he had been non-selected for promotion to the rank of
CPT by the selection board that convened on 23 November 1992.

6.  The applicant was promoted in June 1994 to the rank of CPT with a DOR
of 11 June 1994.

7.  The applicant applied to this Board in 2001 requesting promotion
reconsideration under the Reserve Active Selection List (RASL) criteria
vice the Active Duty List (ADL) criteria and the Board granted his request.
 On 26 July 2001, he was promoted to the rank of MAJ with an effective date
and DOR of 27 June 2001.

8.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained
from the HRC-STL Office of Promotions, Reserve Components.  Officials at
that office opined that while it cannot be determined whether the OER
ending in 1991 was considered at the time, the OERs ending in 1992 and 1993
were not eligible for a Department of the Army Advisory Board consideration
because both of those reports were received after the convene date of the
appropriate boards.  That office recommended that his request be denied.
The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date,
no response has been received by the staff of the Board.

9.  A review of his records shows that the applicant is serving in the
Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, that he has approximately 19 years of
active service and that he has an extensive transaction history of
contacting and being contacted by officials at the HRC-STL in regards to
his career.  A review of his OER ending in 1991 failed to reveal if that
document was received in time for review by the appropriate selection
board.  However, there is no evidence that he applied for promotion
reconsideration based on the failure to review that report during the
timeframe in question.

10.  Army Regulation 135-155 provides the policies and procedures for
convening standby advisory boards.  It provides, in pertinent part, that
standby boards are formed to prevent an injustice to an officer or former
officers who were eligible for promotion but whose records contained a
material error when reviewed by the selection board.  A material error is
defined in that regulation as one or more errors of such a nature that in
the judgment of the reviewing official or reviewing body, caused an
individual’s nonselection by a promotion board.  Had such errors been
corrected at the time the individual been considered, a reasonable chance
would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for
promotion.  Headquarters will normally not determine that a material error
existed if the administrative error was immaterial, if the officer
exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered the error or
omission, or if the officer could have taken timely corrective action by
notifying officials at the Department of the error and providing any
relevant documentation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the failure of selection boards to
review three separate OERs at the time the respective boards convened,
resulted in his delayed selection for promotion, has been noted.  However,
he has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of
record that his evaluation reports were not processed in accordance with
the applicable regulations at the time.

2.  While officials at the HRC-STL have confirmed that two of his
evaluation reports (92 and 93) were received after the convene date of the
respective boards, the applicant has failed to show that they were unduly
delayed and that he is entitled to promotion reconsideration or that they
were the contributing factors to his non-selection at the time.

3.  Although the Board cannot determine if the 1991 OER was reviewed by the
appropriate boards at the time, some 15 years ago, the applicant has not
shown that there is evidence to support his contention or that he exercised
reasonable diligence to notify officials at the Department at the time that
an error had occurred, if in fact it did.

4.  The applicant is requesting that his DOR for promotions to the ranks of
CPT and MAJ be adjusted; however, he does not state what adjustment he is
requesting nor does he provide sufficient evidence to substantiate an
adjustment to his effective date and DOR for those two pay grades.

5.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the
applicant requested promotion reconsideration based on the absence or un-
timely processing of his evaluation reports.  Inasmuch as the Board does
not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records reviewed by promotion
selection boards and since he has failed to show that he was improperly or
unjustly non-selected at the time or that he exercise due diligence to
bring the error to the attention of the appropriate officials at the time,
there appears to be no basis to make any adjustments to his dates of rank.


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

__WC___  ___AM __  ___DL __  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 Crain________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003056                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061130                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A RC Soldier on AD (USAR-AGR)         |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A RC Soldier on AD (USAR-AGR)         |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A RC Soldier on AD (USAR-AGR)         |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A RC Soldier on AD (USAR-AGR)         |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |315/dor                                 |
|1.131.0500              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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