IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  17 June 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080002858 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his previously denied request for reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that because he was working overseas in Saudi Arabia and the Army erroneously mailed his notification to themselves, he was not informed that he was being considered for promotion nor that he was subsequently considered but not selected for promotion by two consecutive boards.  He continues that he did not have an opportunity to acquire a uniform, update his official photograph, or properly prepare his official records prior to the promotion boards convening.  The applicant adds that he did not find out about his status until he attempted to join a Reserve unit and was informed that he was ineligible for assignment due to the fact that he was twice non-selected for promotion.  The applicant concludes that he desires to continue serving in the Reserves and feels that he was not afforded an opportunity to provide his best representation before the promotion boards for consideration.

3.  The applicant provides new evidence in the form of a memorandum from the United States Total Army Personnel Command (TAPC), now called Human Resources Command (HRC)), St. Louis, Missouri; a verification of employment statement; and copies of travel visas as documentary evidence in support of this application.  These documents were not previously reviewed; therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070012423, on 8 January 2008.

2.  The record shows the applicant served as an active component officer during the period 26 August 1978 through 1 July 1989 when, as a captain (CPT)/pay grade O-3, he was relieved from active duty and transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  The catalyst for his relief from active duty was failure of selection for permanent promotion to the rank of major (MAJ)/pay grade O-4.

3.  United States Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, Orders, dated 29 November 1989, reassigned the applicant to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) effective 2 July 1989.  The orders also informed the applicant that it was imperative for him to keep the unit informed of his current address so he may be informed of any change in his legal Reserve obligation or status.

4.  United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 22 May 1990, shows the applicant was promoted to major as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army with a date of rank of 2 July 1989 and an effective date of 23 March 1990.

5.  United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 15 December 1995, notified the applicant at his employer's address in Saudi Arabia that he had been considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a recent Reserve Selection Board, but was not recommended for promotion.  The memorandum also informed the applicant that this constituted his first passover for promotion to this grade.  The memorandum continued that the applicant would be considered again by a new board the following year.  The memorandum emphasized that the new board would evaluate the applicant's official Department of the Army file and judge his military record as compared with the records of the officers in the new zone of consideration.  The memorandum concluded by informing the applicant that if he was not selected for promotion by the next board, he would be subject to removal from an active status in accordance with current regulations.  The distribution portion of the memorandum indicates that a copy of this memorandum was also forwarded to the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

6.  United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 6 January 1997, notified the applicant at his home of record address in Arizona that he had been considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a recent Reserve Selection Board, but was not recommended for promotion.  The memorandum also informed the applicant that since this constituted his second passover for promotion to this grade, he must be separated from the Army Reserve.  The distribution portion of the memorandum indicates that a copy of this memorandum was also forwarded to the applicant's OMPF.

7.  United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 6 January 1997, notified the applicant through the Officers Management Support Branch of the United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri that he had been considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a recent Reserve Selection Board, but was not recommended for promotion.  The memorandum also informed the applicant that since this constituted his second passover for promotion to this grade, he must be discharged unless he met certain retention criteria.  The distribution portion of the memorandum indicates that a copy of this memorandum was also forwarded to the applicant's OMPF.

8.  United States Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, Orders C-10-743168, dated 17 October 1997, released the applicant from the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) and assigned him to the Retired Reserve effective 17 October 1997.  The catalyst for this action was promotion non-selection.

9.  United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 18 June 1998, notified the applicant at his home of record address in Arizona that he had been considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a recent Reserve Selection Board, but was not recommended for promotion.

10.  As proof of his contention that he was not notified at his mailing address in Saudi Arabia because TAPC erroneously mailed his notification to themselves, the applicant provides a copy of the previously mentioned United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 6 January 1997, addressed to him at the mailing address for the Officers Management Support Branch of the United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri.  This memorandum notified the applicant of his second passover for promotion to lieutenant colonel and the fact that he must be discharged unless he met certain retention criteria.  The distribution portion of the memorandum indicates that a copy of the memorandum was also forwarded to the applicant and to his OMPF.


11.  As proof that he was living and working in Saudi Arabia during the time of his promotion board considerations, the applicant provides a brief statement from a former coworker who attests that the applicant was employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines and worked overseas from August 1989 until July 1996.  The applicant also provides copies of two visas showing entry and exit from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

12.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers - Army National Guard and United States Army Reserve) states, in pertinent part, that an officer who twice fails to be selected for promotion to captain, major, or lieutenant colonel will not again be considered for promotion and will be removed from an active status within 90 days after the selection board submits its results to Headquarters, Department of the Army.

13.  Army Regulation 135-155 specifies, in pertinent part, that promotion reconsideration by an SSB 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 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.

14.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management) is intended as a professional development guide for individual officers.  It includes chapters relating to officer education, general promotion policies, and officer evaluations.  In pertinent part, it states that officers in many respects are ultimately their own career managers.  The key is to be involved in career development by making informed, logical decisions and acting upon them.  One important element of an officer's involvement is the accurate reflection of capabilities in the OMPF.  The OMPF and the career management individual file (CMIF) contain the date from which important career development decisions are made for selection, advancement, assignment, and retention.  Officers should review, update and maintain these records throughout their careers.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he should be reconsidered by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel was carefully considered and found to be without merit.

2.  The basis of the applicant's contention is that due to the fact that he was working overseas in Saudi Arabia, he was not informed that he was being considered for promotion or that he was subsequently considered but not selected for promotion by two consecutive boards.  He also states that he did not have an opportunity to acquire a uniform, update his official photograph, or properly prepare his official records prior to the promotion boards convening.

3.  Orders, dated 29 November 1989, in pertinent part, informed the applicant that it was imperative for him to keep the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) informed of his current address so he may be informed of any change in his legal Reserve obligation or status.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was not notified at his mailing address in Saudi Arabia because TAPC erroneously mailed his notification to themselves is negated by the fact that evidence shows the United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, notified the applicant at his employer's address in Saudi Arabia that he had been considered but not recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel in a memorandum, dated 15 December 1995.  This memorandum also informed the applicant that this constituted his first passover and that he would be considered again by a new board the following year.  The memorandum emphasized that the new board would evaluate the applicant's official Department of the Army file and judge his military record as compared with the records of the officers in the new zone of consideration.  This essentially informed the applicant that he had less than one year to ensure his OMPF was updated prior to being considered by the new board.  The memorandum concluded by informing the applicant that if he was not selected for promotion by the next board, he would be subject to removal from an active status in accordance with current regulations.

5.  The onus for ensuring that his OMPF was updated and accurate was clearly the applicant's.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 stresses that officers in many respects are ultimately their own career managers and that they should be actively involved in their career development by making informed, logical decisions and acting upon them.  One important element of an officer's involvement is the accurate reflection of their entire career and capabilities in the 

OMPF, particularly because important career development decisions are made for selection, advancement, assignment, and retention based upon the OMPF.  Officers should review, update and maintain these records throughout their careers.

6.  Two United States TAPC, St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandums, dated 6 January 1997, notified the applicant both at his home of record address and through the Officers Management Support Branch of the United States TAPC,
St. Louis, Missouri that he had been considered but not recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel a second time and that he must be discharged unless he met certain retention criteria.

7.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant's case.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X___  ___X___  ___X_____  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070012423, dated 8 January 2008.



      __________X_____________
      	CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080002858



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080002858



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1