RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  18 September 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003187 


	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. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James Anderholm

Chairperson

Ms. Laverne Berry

Member

Mr. Ronald Gant

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 a Special Selection Board reconsider her for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).  

2.  The applicant states she was considered but not selected for promotion by the Calendar Year (CY) 2006 Reserve Components (RC) LTC Army Promotion List (APL) Promotion Selection Board.  She states, in effect, that an injustice occurred when her entire file of credentials was not presented to the board for its consideration and deliberation for promotion to lieutenant colonel given the promotion selection criteria of best qualified.  She further states, in effect, that her completed graduate level civilian education classes were erroneously withheld from her board promotion packet; therefore, her promotion board file was incomplete; therefore, she was not favorably considered.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her application:

	a.  A self-authored memorandum, dated 6 February 2007, to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records outlining in detail her request for a Special Selection Board.  She states, in pertinent part, that she mailed an addendum to the President of the 2006 LTC APL Promotion Selection Board with her graduate course academic history showing she had completed 6 of 12 graduate courses toward her graduate degree.

	b.  A copy, dated 6 June 2006, of her graduate academic history, not an official transcript, from the university registrar showing she had completed 15 hours of graduate study during the period Fall 2005 through Spring 2006.

	c.  A series of military orders:

	    (1) Temporary Change of Station (TCS) Orders 06-100-00020, dated 10 April 2006, published by Headquarters, United States Army Reserve (USAR) Command deploying her to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on 20 April 2006.  She was assigned to the USAR Logistics Civil Augmentation Program stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

	    (2)  Deployment Orders Number 118-5, dated 28 April 2006, published by United States Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, directing the applicant to report on 7 May 2006 to Fort Bliss, Texas, for overseas deployment to Southwest Asia in support of OIF.

	    (3)  Orders Number 128-9, dated 8 May 2006, published by Fort Belvoir Directorate of Military Personnel amending Orders 118-5 showing a change in accounting classification accounts.

	d.  Electronic message from Human Resource Command (HRC)-St. Louis acknowledging the applicant's documents were received at HRC-St. Louis on 11 July 2006.

	e.  Copies of four Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) for the following periods of service:  From 16 August 2005 to 19 April 2006; from 7 April 2005 to 12 August 2005; from 7 April 2004 to 6 April 2005; and from 7 April 2003 to 
6 April 2004.  There is no derogatory information on the OERs.  

	f.  A copy of her DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) and diploma certificate, dated 16 October 2003, which shows she successfully completed the nonresident Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC).

	g.  A copy of CGSC Form 128 (Certificate of Course Completion), dated 24 February 1999, which shows she successfully completed the Reserve Component Combined Arms and Services Staff School.

	h.  Two copies of award certificates and orders showing she was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal on 26 April 2004 for meritorious service for a three-year period serving as the 96th Regional Readiness Command mobilization officer.  The second award is the Defense Meritorious Service Medal awarded on 6 August 2001 for exceptionally meritorious service for a three year period serving as the Support Branch Chief for the Program Management Office-Defense Travel System, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller.

	i.  A copy of her Officer Record Brief dated 31 August 2006 showing her chronological history of assignments and her promotion board official photograph.

	j.  A copy of the memorandum sent to the applicant by HRC-St. Louis, dated 18 January 2007, which shows the 2006 LTC DA Reserve Components Selection Board did not select her for promotion and her promotion file would not be reconsidered, as there was no material error in her promotion board file.  




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently a member of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program on active duty.  She was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 24 October 1986.  She is assigned to Quartermaster Corps branch.

2.  On or about 12 September 2006, the applicant's Official Military Personnel File was reviewed by the Calendar Year (CY) 06 LTC APL DA Selection Board for promotion consideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel/pay grade 05.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria as established by MILPER Message, Number 06-168, published on 14 June 2006.

3.  On 14 June 2006, HRC-St. Louis published a memorandum of instruction to all officers eligible for promotion consideration per the MILPER Message Number 06-168, which states, in effect, that all officers being considered by this promotion board are presumed to have met the civilian education requirements. 

4.  On 23 June 2006, the applicant wrote a personal letter to the President of the LTC APL Board presenting to the board the fact that she had completed 12 graduate courses toward her masters' degree.   She further writes she withdrew from the masters' degree program temporarily due to deployment orders to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.  She forwarded to the President of the Board an unofficial transcript from the university to support her letter.

5.  On 11 July 2006, the applicant received an electronic message from 
HRC-St. Louis acknowledging the applicant's documents were received at HRC-St. Louis.

6.  On 4 January 2007, the results of the CY 06 LTC APL DA Selection Board were released.  The results show the applicant was not selected for promotion.

7.  On 18 January 2007, HRC-St. Louis denied her request for promotion board reconsideration advising her that the reasons for her non-selection to lieutenant colonel are "unknown because board deliberations are not a matter of record."  The applicant had made the statement, in effect, that a material error occurred when the board did not receive her graduate course academic history report for its consideration and deliberation.  The correspondent disagreed stating it was not a material error. 

8.  HRC-St. Louis Office of Promotions for Reserve Components wrote an advisory opinion for the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR), which states, in effect, that the applicant did not produce documents to support a material error that would necessitate promotion reconsideration by a special selection board.  The advisory opinion further defined for the applicant that the transcript submitted was not official nor did it show she had completed her graduate degree; therefore, it was not considered a source document upon which to base a promotion reconsideration board.

9.  The ABCMR wrote the applicant on 25 April 2007, and provided her a copy of the unfavorable advisory opinion from HRC-St. Louis.  The applicant did not rebut the advisory opinion. 

10.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) sets forth the basic guidance to the promotion board to select the best-qualified officers who are best able to perform the duties at the next higher grade from the group of fully qualified officers.  The regulation further provides promotion consideration is based on meeting the minimum military and civilian education requirements.  Officers eligible for promotion consideration to LTC have their required undergraduate degree because the officers where fully qualified majors.  Other factors considered are the Army's needs in each branch, functional area and area of concentration, and the maximum number of officers required from each competitive category. 

11.  Army Regulation 135-155 states, in pertinent part, Special Selection Boards (SSB), convened under the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) on and after 1 October 1996, will reconsider commissioned officers, (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were wrongly not considered and reconsider commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were considered but not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened on or after 1 October 1996.  The records eligible for the SSB must contain a material error.  A material error is defined as a record lacking completed official transcripts from the highest military and civilian educational institutions; OERs, award of the Silver Star or above.  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 contends that the Board President and its members did not view her personal memorandum to them for the CY 06 LTC APL Promotion Board with her unofficial graduate course history, and that this contributed to her failure to be favorably selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.
2.  DA selection boards for officer promotions do not provide the reasons an officer was not selected for promotion.  The applicant provided an unofficial copy of a partial transcript of graduate level courses showing she was enrolled in graduate studies.  A material error would have occurred if the applicant had provided a completed official transcript from the graduate university showing she had completed her master's degree.  Since the document she provided only showed partial completion and it was not a certified official transcript, HRC-St. Louis staff did not present her personal memorandum with attached transcripts to the promotion board for its consideration.  HRC-St. Louis complied with known regulatory guidance.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JA___  ___LB___  __RG ___  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.




____ James Anderholm_______
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070003187
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070918
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131.00
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.