RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	 


	BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009999 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. G. E. Vandenberg

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Jerome L. Pionk

Member

Mr. Eddie L. Smoot

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, that he be retained in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), granted a waiver of the completion of an Advanced Officer Course requirement, and his file be referred to a Special Selection Board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unable to complete the residence portion of the Advanced Officer Course first because of deployment to Iraq. Then, after he returned from Iraq, he was denied attendance because he was two pounds overweight.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of a personal statement, a letter requesting waiver of education, a DD Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel), his appointment letter, active duty activation orders, a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and two notifications of promotion board results.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant was commissioned a first lieutenant in the USAR Chaplain Corps on 25 June 1993.  He was promoted to captain effective 20 August 1998.

2.  The records show that in October 2000 the applicant was placed in the weight control program.  

3.  The available records do not contain any Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the period 4 March 1999 through 16 January 2003 or any subsequent to 16 January 2004.

4.  On 9 January 2003 the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of the war on terrorism.  The available records show he served on active duty from 10 February 2003 through 9 April 2004 with service in Kuwait and Iraq from 20 April 2003 through 13 March 2004.

5.  On 14 January 2004 the applicant contacted the Human Resources Command – St. Louis in an attempt to locate the missing OERs for 4 March 1999 through 16 January 2003.  Since he was mobilized and did not have access to his record, he requested assistance in making sure that his file was ready to be forwarded to the promotion board.  The reply he received indicated that the OERs in question had been rejected and returned to the unit to be fixed.
6.  The applicant's 16 January 2004 OER indicates that, due to a shortage of chaplains, the applicant was serving on active duty in Iraq as the only Catholic chaplain at his command.  In addition to his post duties he was also visiting at least six other forward operating bases (FOB).  His rater indicated he had exceeded every expectation and gave him a first block evaluation of "outstanding performance, must promote".  The intermediate rater concurred with the rater and recommended the applicant be "promoted now".  The senior rater described the applicant as having outstanding potential and recommended the applicant should be selected for positions of greater responsibility.

7.  On 10 May 2005 the applicant was notified that he had been considered for but nonselected for promotion to major due to not having completed the required educational requirements.  

8.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant was again notified that he had been considered for but nonselected for promotion to major.  At this time he was also notified that since this was his second nonselection he must be discharged not later than 1 November 2006.  The reason for nonselection was not noted.

9.  A 27 April 2006 entry in the i-Perms indicates that the applicant was selected for retention by the 2006 Selective Continuation Board.

10.  In his 12 June 2006 personal statement, the applicant states that he completed the correspondence portion the Chaplain Advanced Officers Course while assigned to the 5501st United States Army Hospital (USAH) and was activated for service in Iraq with only three days notice.  While in Iraq he indicates he was notified that he was being considered for promotion but did not submit a promotion packet because he had not attended the resident portion of the Advanced Officers Course.  After serving for 14 months in Iraq, he applied for and was accepted for attendance in the resident course.  Prior to his departure to attend the resident course he was found to be two pounds over weight and his command withdraw him from the course.  He observed that no one questioned his weight prior shipping him to Iraq.   

11.  A search of the available records did not result in locating any documentation related to the initiation of a Flagging action for weight control subsequent to the applicant's return from his 2004 deployment.

12.  In the development of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components.  It was noted that the applicant was nonselected by both the 2005 and 2006 Reserve Selection Boards.  The specific reasons for his nonselection are unknown but it was noted that the applicant did not qualify for promotion due to non-completion of the required Advanced Officer Course.  It was further noted that the applicant was selected by the 2006 Selective Continuation Board which was released on 26 April 2006; however, without a waiver of the education requirement the applicant could not be referred to a Special Selection Board.  It was recommended that the applicant be granted a waiver of education but also noted that the applicant has three "rejected" officer evaluations that would need to be corrected to improve his chances for promotion.

13.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant.  In his response, the applicant indicates that his unit historically has a poor record of completing and filing evaluations within the proper time frames.  He asks that he not be penalized for the mistakes made by others.

14.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  To qualify for selection, commissioned officers must complete the required time in grade (TIG) and the military educational requirements specific to their next higher grade.  An Officer will be placed before a mandatory promotion board for consideration for major prior to completion seven years TIG.  They are required to have completed the appropriate branch Advanced Officer Course.

15.  Paragraph 3-19, (Promotion Reconsideration Boards - General) states that officers who have either failed of selection for promotion, or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered for promotion by either a promotion advisory board or a special selection board, as appropriate.  Special selection boards (SSB), convened under the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) on and after 1 October 1996, will reconsider commissioned officers, who were wrongly not 
considered and reconsider commissioned officers who were considered but not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened on or after 1 October 1996.  

16.  Paragraph 4-34 (Selective continuation) states that an officer twice nonselected for promotion by a mandatory Reserve of the Army selection board must be removed within the prescribed time limits.  However, subject to the needs of the Army, officers pending separation because of having twice failed to be selected for promotion to MAJ or LTC, may be selectively continued on the RASL in their present grade when required by the needs of the Reserve of the Army.  A selective continuation board must recommend the officers for continuation and the Secretary of the Army (SA) must approve the recommendation before officers may be continued.  Continuation for CPT and MAJ will normally be for 3 years from the approval date of the selective continuation board by which the officer is recommended for continuation.  However, continuation may not extend beyond the date on which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned service (CPT) or 24 years of commissioned service (MAJ).  The SA may adjust the period of selective continuation.  Selectively continued officers, if otherwise eligible, will continue to be considered for promotion until separation.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions [Flags]) sets forth the procedures and policy for the proper impamentation and removal of Flags.  In pertinent part, the regulations states that a flag will be initiated immediately when a soldier's status changes from favorable to unfavorable and the information related to the flag will be maintained in a restricted access area.  Only those with a need to know of the suspension will be informed and notification of flagging action and active flag cases will be reviewed monthly.  A flag will be removed immediately when a soldier's status changes from unfavorable to favorable.  Soldiers who are flagged are barred from all favorable personnel actions including attendance in military schools.

18.  Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program [AWCP]) states that Soldiers not meeting body fat standards will be entered in the AWCP will be flagged under the provisions of Amy Regulation 600-8-2.  Enrollment in a weight control program starts on the day that the Soldier is informed by the unit commander that he/she has been entered in a weight control program.  Weight reduction counseling is to be accomplished prior to or shortly after entry into the program. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's selection by the 2006 Selective Continuation Board renders the issue of retention moot, as such it will not be further discussed.

2.  Considering the favorable advisory opinion, which recommends that a waiver of education be granted, based on the indication that there is a shortage of chaplains and the fact that the applicant was selected for continuation, it would be appropriate to afford the applicant a wavier of educational requirement at this time.

3.  With the granting of a wavier of education requirement, it is appropriate to refer the applicant's file for review by an SSB under the 2005 and 2006 criteria. 

4.  It is the responsibility of every officer to ensure that their records are properly maintained.  However, it is also the responsibility of the Army to assist the Soldier in correcting errors and deficiencies in the record keeping process.  The records show the applicant has attempted to have the deficiencies in his records corrected and has requested assistance from HRC to accomplish this.  However, the issue of the rejected OERs is still outstanding and needs to be resolved by the applicant and his command.


BOARD VOTE:

__JLP___  __ELS __  ___LDS_  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 and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by granting him a waiver of the educational requirement and referring his file to a Special Selection Board under the 2005 and 2006 criteria.




__   _Linda D. Simmons____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060009999
SUFFIX
 
RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070508 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.