RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  31 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013562 


	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

Ms. Wanda L. Waller

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William Crain

Chairperson

Mr. Donald Lewy

Member

Mr. Roland Venable

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 reconsidered for promotion to colonel by a promotion advisory board. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that due to a recent change in two Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) he is requesting a promotion advisory board for the year 1989 when he was first considered for promotion to the rank of colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  He states the two OERs reflect a substantially longer rating period than the original OER did and that because erroneous orders to the National War College, rather than to the National Defense University, had been published in 1989, his two OERs were not senior rated profiled and did not go before the 1989 colonel promotion board.  He contends that most promotions are favorably decided at the first board, and the one year delay for the two OERs was significant in this regard.  He states that valid attachment orders to the National Defense University were published on 25 May 1990 and a letter dated 
9 May 1990 permitted the OERs to be accepted at the Army Reserve Personnel Center.  The OERs were corrected and then senior rater profiled after the rated period had been considerably shortened.     

3.  The applicant states that in response to his recent request to the National Archives he only received the actual, correct, assignment orders along with their 17 April 2006 letter.  He contends the request was stimulated when he called St. Louis this spring and found out that no OERs were listed in his military records for his National Defense University service as Seminar Director.  

4.  The applicant further states that the two OERs were as a Seminar Director for the National Defense University sponsored “National Security Management” course taught in Boston, that it was a colonel position and joint assignment, and that the course was considered a “senior service level” which is the highest military level available to the reservist as a category “2A” educational level or above the Army War College per the 24 March 1980 Army Reserve Coding Manual.  He contends that his attachment as National Security Management course Seminary Director broke barriers for reservists, as he was only one out of 80 Reserve officers who received orders for that type of attached duty.  He also states that the duty covered three years of classes.

5.  The applicant provides a letter, dated 30 June 2006, to the Commander, Human Resources Command in St. Louis, Missouri; a letter, dated 17 April 2006, from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri; DA Forms 4651-R (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment), dated 
19 February 1988 and 16 June 1988; letters, dated 9 December 1987 and 
30 June 1989; orders, dated 16 May 1990, 1 March 1989, 23 June 1989, and 
25 May 1990; a memorandum, dated 9 May 1990; a Chronological Statement of Retirement Points; letters, dated 11 April 1990 and 14 March 1990; a certificate of appreciation; a letter, dated 30 September 1992; a diploma, dated 15 January 1981; and a letter, dated 18 August 2006, from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri.   

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the USAR on 
12 June 1965.  He was promoted to first lieutenant on 5 May 1968; promoted to captain on 5 March 1969; promoted to major on 11 June 1977; and promoted to lieutenant colonel on 10 June 1985. 

2.  By the National Defense University letter, dated 9 December 1987, the applicant was congratulated on his appointment as a Seminar Director of the National Security Management Program.

3.  Orders, dated 1 March 1989, attached the applicant to the National War College effective 27 February 1989.  These orders were revoked on 23 June 1989.

4.  Orders, dated 16 May 1990, attached the applicant to the National War College effective 10 May 1990.  These orders were amended on 25 May 1990 to change the effective date to 30 November 1987.

5.  By the National Defense University letter, dated 30 June 1989, the applicant was provided two OERs, one for the period 30 November 1987 to 29 November 1988 and one for the period 30 November 1988 to 30 June 1989. 

6.  The applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 14 September 1993. 

7.  Apparently, two OERs, one for the period 6 February 1988 to 5 February 1989 and one for the period 6 February 1989 to 30 June 1989, were filed in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  On 18 August 2006, the Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri administratively corrected these two OERs to read for the period 30 November 1987 to 29 November 1988 and 30 November 1988 to 30 June 1989, respectively.  In addition, a non-rated statement was issued for the period 1 July 1989 to 1 March 1990. 

8.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officer Other Than General Officer) prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion advisory boards/special selection boards will be convened on an “as needed” basis to reconsider officers who were either improperly omitted from consideration due to administrative error, or who were non-selected for mandatory promotion as a result of material error. 

9.  Paragraph 3-19f(2) of Army Regulation 135-155 states that the Commander, Human Resources Command, Office of Promotions will normally not determine that a material error existed when an administrative error was immaterial, or, the officer in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error or omission in the OMPF.  Or when the officer could have taken timely corrective action such as notifying the Office of Promotions of the error and provided any relevant documentation that he or she had. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

The applicant’s contentions that in response to his recent request to the National Archives he only received the actual, correct, assignment orders along with their 17 April 2006 letter and that the request was stimulated when he called St. Louis and found out that no OERs were listed in his military records for his National Defense University service as Seminar Director were noted.  However, had he applied reasonable diligence, he should have discovered these two OERs (and an OER for the period covered by the non-rated statement) were missing from his OMPF in 1989, in time for his promotion board.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to grant the applicant’s request for a promotion advisory board.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

WC____  ___DL___  _RV_____  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
AR20060013562
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070531
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131.0100
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.