RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:  7 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004093


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard G. Sayre              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David K. Haasenritter         |     |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 to chief
warrant officer three (CW3) by a special selection board under the 2002
year criteria.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her date of rank for CW3 should go
along with her peers.  She also states that her unit was deployed; making
timely officer evaluation reports (OER) impossible and the raters were
unavailable.  Her records now have all the missing copies of the OERs,
which was the only reason for her non-selection for promotion and the OERs
have been rated.

3.  The applicant provides front sides copies of her OERs ending 12 January
2000, 12 January 2001, and 15 July 2001, in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that she was appointed in the
United States Army Reserve as a CW2 effective 4 November 1997.

2.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to CW3 by the 2002
Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB).

3.  She was considered and selected for promotion to CW3 by the 2003 RCSB
and promoted to CW3 with an effective date and date of rank of 3 November
2003.

4.  In an advisory opinion, dated 24 May 2006, the Chief, Special Actions
Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command,
St. Louis, Missouri, stated that the applicant's files, when reviewed by
the 2002 RCSB, did not include her OERs ending 12 January 2000, 12 January
2001, and 15 July 2001.  Based on the omission of the OER's it was
recommended that the applicant be granted a Department of Army Promotion
Advisory Board consideration under the 2002 criteria.  If selected by an
advisory board she may be eligible for an earlier date of rank than 3
November 2003, the date she received based on her selection promotion by
the 2003 RCSB.

5.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for her acknowledgment and
or rebuttal on 21 August 2006 and she concurred on 24 August 2006.

6.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the
promotion of Reserve warrant officers.  This regulation specifies that
promotion reconsideration by a special selection board/advisory board may
only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which
existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this
context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the
reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s non-selection by a
promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the
individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the
individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also
provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the
reason(s) for non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified
due to non-completion of required military schooling.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s records contained material error when reviewed for
promotion to CW3 by the 2002 RCSB and should now be submitted for
appropriate special selection board consideration for this purpose.

2.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be
appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

_DKH___  __RGS__  __PM ___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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 placing the officer evaluation reports for the periods
ending 12 January 2000, 12 January 2001, and 15 July 2001 in the
applicant's official military personnel file.

2.  That following administrative implementation of the foregoing, her
records be submitted to a duly constituted special selection
board/advisory board for promotion consideration for chief warrant
officer three under the 2002 year criteria.

3.  That if selected, her records be further corrected by showing she was
promoted to chief warrant officer three on her date of eligibility, as
determined by appropriate Departmental officials, under the 2002 year
criteria, provided she was otherwise qualified and met all other
prerequisites for promotion.

4.  That if not selected, the applicant be so notified.




                                  ______Patrick H. McGann, Jr.___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004093                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061107                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |131.01                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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