RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012803


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Sherri Ward                   |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Tucker                  |     |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 her date of rank for promotion to
lieutenant colonel be changed to May 2003.

2.  The applicant states that she was twice non-selected for promotion
because her Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) from 2000 through 2003 were
written and forged by her unit administrator.  She states that the
signatures of the rater, senior rater and rated officer on the specified
evaluations were all basically identical.  She states that she was not
allowed by her unit commander to start the Command and General Staff
Officers Course (CGSOC) until 2003 because at the time, she was told that
she was needed on the Soldier Readiness Processing Team and could not be
excused.  She states that if proper procedures had been followed in her
unit, she would have been selected for promotion in May 2003.  She states
that due to her OERs and delayed attendance/completion of the CGSC, she was
twice non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  She states that
she filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) regarding her unit
administrator, OERs, and the denial of her requests to attend the CGSOC and
that she received a letter from the IG substantiating her complaints.  She
states that as a result of the IG and the Commander's Inquiry (AR 15-6)
investigations, the Deputy Commander of her unit had the proper raters
write new OERs for her which were submitted to the National Guard Bureau on
10 July 2006.

3.  The applicant states that on 7 October 2005, she requested a Special
Selection Board (SSB) reconsider her promotion based on having completed
50% of the CGSC and she was selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.
She states that she found a lieutenant colonel slot in the United States
Army Reserve (USAR) 3 years ago and was asked by the Reserve commander to
transfer.  She states that she wanted to wait until her problems were
corrected before she transferred.  She states that she had no knowledge of
this Board at the time and that she was afraid that if she transferred, she
would never get her OERs corrected.  She states that she made plans to
transfer to the Reserve in November 2006, after receiving her 20-year
retirement letter from the National Guard.  She states that she believes
that she should have her DOR to lieutenant colonel backdated to May 2003,
the date that she initially went before the Department of the Army Medical
Department (AMEDD) Major – Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.




4.  The applicant provides in support of her application, Special Orders
Number 312 AR dated 12 December 2006, withdrawing her Federal Recognition
and transferring her to the USAR; a copy of separation orders dated
13 November 2006; a copy of her Report of Separation and Record of Service
(NGB Form 22); separation orders dated 7 November 2006; a Notification of
Eligibility for Retired Pay at age 60 (Twenty Year Letter) dated 1 November
2006; a letter addressed to this agency dated 28 August 2006; a
"Biographical Summary" dated 6 August 2006; a memorandum dated 16 June 2006
notifying the Army National Guard Personnel Center of the applicant's
selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel by an SSB; a letter from the
Office of the IG notifying her that her allegations were substantiated; a
memorandum dated 7 October 2005 requesting that an SSB reconsider her AMEDD
Officer Promotion Board Packet; a memorandum dated 30 August 2005 notifying
her of her non-selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel; a copy of her
Service School Academic Evaluation Report; a copy of a memorandum dated
2 November 2004 notifying her of her non-selection for promotion to
lieutenant colonel; electronic mail dated 2 July 2004 forwarding her CGSOC
Phase II Completion Certificate; a memorandum dated 30 October 2003
notifying her of her non-selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel;
transfer orders dated 21 February 2003; transfer orders dated 1 June 1999;
reassignment orders dated 30 November 1998; copies of her OERs before and
after the changes were made; and Special Orders Number 39 AR dated 3 March
1998 extending her Federal Recognition.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that she was appointed in the
Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG), Army Nurse Corps, as a first
lieutenant effective 21 October 1986.

2.  She was promoted to captain effective 3 July 1989 and she was promoted
to major effective 3 March 1998.

3.  On 30 October 2003, the applicant was considered but not selected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Department of the Army (DA) Reserve
Components Selection Board (RCSB), which convened on 28 May 2003.  In the
memorandum of notification, she was informed by the Chief, Office of
Promotions, Reserve Components, United States Army Human Resources Command,
that if she remained eligible, she would be considered for promotion by the
next mandatory selection board for her grade and competitive category.


4.  On 2 November 2004, the applicant was notified that she was considered
but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a DA RCSB, which
convened on 17 May 2004.  She was again informed that if she remained
eligible, she would be considered for promotion by the next mandatory
selection board for her grade and competitive category.

5.  The applicant filed a complaint with the IG's office on 27 April 2005,
alleging inappropriate conduct by her unit administrator and improperly
completed OERs.

6.  On 30 August 2005, the applicant was again notified that she was
considered, but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a DA
RCSB, which convened on 10 May 2005.

7.  The applicant was notified on 7 October 2005, that she had
satisfactorily completed 50 percent of the CGSOC on 2 July 2004.

8.  On 7 October 2005, the applicant submitted a request to have her DA
AMEDD Officer Promotion Board Packet considered by an SSB.  In her request,
she stated that she was non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel
because her records failed to indicate that he had completed 50 percent of
the CGSOC.  She stated that she was informed that the 50 percent completion
certificate that she submitted in her promotion packet was not official and
consequently, her packet was incomplete and was not considered for
promotion.

9.  On 26 April 2006, after conducting a thorough investigation into the
applicant's allegations, the IG determined that her allegation that the
unit administrator improperly wrote and signed unit officer's signatures to
OERs, Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports, and Unit Signature Cards
was substantiated; her allegation that the unit administrator improperly
denied access to military schools for unit members was substantiated; that
her allegation that the unit administrator improperly signed physician
assistant's and unit physician's signatures to clear and process physical
examinations was substantiated; and her allegation that the unit
administrator improperly responded to an IG complaint filed by a unit
member by attempting to have the member's OER changed by the rater was
substantiated.

10.  On 16 June 2006, the applicant was notified by the Chief, Office of
Promotions Reserve Components that, as a result of an SSB, she had been
selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a board that adjourned on
26 January 2006; and that her promotion eligibility date was 9 August 2005.

11.  The OERs that the applicant referred to as part of her IG complaint
are for the periods covering 15 May 1999 through 14 May 2000; 15 May 2000
through 14 May 2001; 15 May 2001 through 5 December 2001; 6 December 2001
through 5 December 2002; and 6 December 2002 through 30 May 2003.  New OERs
were completed by the proper personnel and the applicant signed her new
OERs on 26 June 2006.

12.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained
from the Chief, Personnel Division, Departments of the Army and the Air
Force who recommended that the applicant's effective date for promotion to
lieutenant be changed to 2 July 2004; that she receive back pay and
allowances; and that her Retirement Point Accounting System be corrected.
In the advisory opinion, the Chief, Personnel Division stated that her
recommendation was based on the applicant's approved SSB memorandum dated
16 June 2006 and her completion of 50 percent of the CGSOC which was
required for promotion.

13.  On 19 April 2007, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the
applicant for her information and possible rebuttal.  On 30 April 2007, she
submitted a rebuttal in which she states that she does not concur with the
advisory opinion and that she still believes that she should have been
promoted to lieutenant colonel in May 2003, with back pay and allowances
and corrected retirement points.  In her rebuttal, the applicant states
that the CGSOC is not a requirement for promotion to lieutenant colonel for
Army nurses and that she only wanted to attend the CGSOC to make herself
more competitive for promotion.  She states that she met all of the
requirements for promotion to lieutenant colonel prior to the promotion
board that convened in May 2003.  She states that her OERs that were
written and forged by the unit administrator were apparently the main
reasons for her non-selection.  The applicant states that her civilian
education and position were perhaps not given consideration during the
promotion process and she concluded her rebuttal by providing specific
details regarding her education and qualifications.

14.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the
promotion of Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve
officers. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a
SSB/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.

15.  Army Regulation 135-155 also provides that with the exception of the
completion of the Officer Basic Course, AMEDD officers are not required to
meet the military education requirements for promotion to major, lieutenant
colonel and colonel.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There were four OERs in the applicant’s records at the time that she
was considered for promotion in May 2003 which were not corrected until
June 2006.

2.  Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant’s records contained
material error when they were reviewed for promotion to lieutenant colonel
by the 2003 RCSB.  Therefore, her records should now be submitted for
appropriate SSB consideration.

3.  However, while the advisory opinion and the applicant in her rebuttal
make reference to correction and addition of retirement points.  Neither is
specific regarding the type and/or amount of points that require
adjustment.  Therefore, the Board can take no action on this portion of her
request.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__SW___  __RD ___  __DT ___  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 partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by:

      a.  submitting her records to a duly constituted SSB/advisory board
for promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel under the 2003 year and
the 2004 year criteria, following administrative implementation of the
foregoing recommendation; and

      b.  if selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by an SSB, by
establishing her lieutenant colonel promotion effective date and date of
rank as if she had been originally selected by either of the two boards,
and by providing any back pay and allowances due.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
changing her date of rank for promotion to lieutenant colonel to May 2003
prior to proper consideration of her case by the appropriate selection
board.




                                  ______ Sherri Ward_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012803                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070621                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  310  |131.0000/PROMOTION                      |
|2.  1043                |131.1100/SSB CONSIDERATION              |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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