Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008413
Original file (20080008413.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008413 


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, removal of the Memorandum of Notification of Discharge from Active Duty, dated 3 September 2003, and the Acknowledgment of Mandatory Discharge from Active Duty from his Official Military Personnel File (OPMF).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the (Memorandum Notification for Discharge) dated 3 September 2003 and the acknowledgement generated as a result of the FY03 Major, Army Competitive Category Selection Board be completely and permanently removed from his OPMF.  “Per Paragraph 10 of MIPER Message Number 03-076, TACP-MSP-O, FY03, Major, Army Competitive Category Promotion Board Zones of Consideration issued on 01/22/2003 -10.  Note that officers with an approved separation date within 90 days of the convene date of the board (i.e. separation dates thru 14 July 2003) are not eligible for consideration.”  He adds that he was discharged from active duty on 16 April 2003 making him ineligible for consideration by that board and therefore, ineligible for non-selection.  The letter for non-selection should not have been generated and should not be in his record.  The applicant finally states that he was unaware that this document was in his record until it was sent to him by the USAR appointments board (received on 19 May 2008) as a part of his request for reappointment to captain.  This document is a major obstacle and creates an erroneous status for his consideration for reappointment.  Regardless, this document is incorrect and should not be in his record.   

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the Memorandum of Notification of Discharge from Active Duty, dated 3 September 2003, in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant is serving as a sergeant in the Army National Guard in an active duty status.

3.  The applicant’s record shows he was appointed a second lieutenant in the USAR on 9 May 1992.  On 11 June 1992, he entered active duty in a commissioned officer status.  The applicant’s service was continuous, and on 
1 June 1996, the applicant was promoted to captain, pay grade O-3.   

4.  On 27 November 2002, the applicant received a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period of 29 June 2002 thru 27 September 2003.  The applicant was relieved of his principal duties as a Public Affairs Detachment Commander as per the recommendation of the Garrison Commander due to the applicant’s repeated failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) standards.  He also was unable to demonstrate that he had passed an APFT despite his last OER stating that this was the case.  His inability to pass an APFT or demonstrate that he had passed an APFT within the last 6 months made the applicant a prime candidate for immediate separation.  The Rater and Senior Rater indicated the applicant as unsatisfactory performance and checked the do not promote block on his OER. 

5.  On an unknown date, the applicant resigned his commission and was separated on 16 April 2003.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 4-24A (1), Army Regulation 
600-8-24, for unacceptable conduct with an honorable discharge.  He had completed 10 years, 10 months and 6 days of active honorable service. 

6.  In April 2003, the Department of the Army Competitive Category Selection Board convened to consider officers for promotion to the next higher grade.  The applicant was considered and non-selected by the board for promotion to major.

7.  A Memorandum of Notification of Discharge from Active Duty dated 
3 September 2003 was generated informing the applicant of his non selection to Major and acknowledgement of mandatory discharge from active duty.  This memorandum was placed in the applicant’s OPMF.   

8.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files, ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. 

9.  Chapter 7 of the same regulation provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF.  Paragraph 7-2 states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.   

10.  MILPER Message Number:  03-076 TACP-MSP- O FY03 Major, Army Competitive Category Promotion Board Zones of Consideration issued: [01/22/2003].  Item 10 of this message Note: That officers with an approved separation date within 90 days of the convene date of the board (i.e. separation dates thru 14 July 2003) are not eligible for consideration. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that the Notification of Discharge from Active Duty Memorandum and the Acknowledgment of Mandatory Discharge from Active Duty be removed from his OPMF was carefully considered and found to have merit.  

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows the Notification of Discharge from Active Duty Memorandum and the Acknowledgment of Mandatory Discharge from Active Duty acknowledgement receipt, dated 3 September 2003 was improperly generated and filed in the applicant OMPF.  The applicant’s record clearly shows that his separation date was within 90 days of the convene date of the promotion board to major.  The evidence of record also shows that the applicant was discharged after the promotion board convened.  Therefore, based on his separation date, the applicant was clearly not eligible for consideration and his record should not have been reviewed by the promotion board.

3.  Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, the Board recommends removal of the Memorandum of Notification of Discharge from Active Duty and the Acknowledgment of Mandatory Discharge from Active Duty, dated 
3 September 2003, from the applicant’s OPMF.

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ___X___  ___X___  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.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  removing the Memorandum of Notification of Discharge from Active Duty, dated 3 September 2003; and 

	b.  removing Acknowledgment of Mandatory Discharge from Active Duty, and all related documents from his Official Military Personnel File.

      
      
      
      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20080008413



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008413



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004260

    Original file (20070004260.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant also states that he requested a Special Selection Board (SSB) in May 2006 for the FY03 selection board, which selected him for promotion to Colonel. In July 2005, due to an administrative error, the applicant's file was transferred to the USAR at which time he was considered by the FY05 Reserve Colonel Selection Board and was selected for promotion to colonel by that board. Based on the fact that the Promotion Boards do not divulge the reason for nonselection and there was no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011650C070206

    Original file (20050011650C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states he requested promotion reconsideration from the Special Review Board (SRB), but the SRB initially cited the incorrect Officer Record Brief (ORB) as the basis for his request and stated there was no evidence of an effort on his part to review his file prior to the convening of the promotion board. The applicant's voter completion sheet for the FY03 Colonel promotion selection board was not annotated to show he had served in a joint duty assignment. The ORB seen by the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03815

    Original file (BC-2003-03815.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Additionally, since he had been appointed in the CAANG, he should have met the ANG FY03 Major Selection Board instead of the AFRES Major Selection Board. The majority of the Board finds no error or injustice in the time required to appoint him in the CAANG as the time to do so does not seem disproportionate considering the scale of the requirements necessary to obtain his appointment. It is further recommended that his record, without the above referenced Article 15, be considered for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02561

    Original file (BC-2002-02561.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO notes that DODD 1310.1 and Title 10, USC, Section 1431.7, allow for the transfer of a Reserve promotion to the Active Duty List (ADL) if an officer of the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) and on a promotion list as a result of selection for promotion by a mandatory promotion board or a Special Selection Board (SSB) and who, before being promoted, is placed on the ADL of the same Armed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003277C071029

    Original file (20070003277C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The memorandum advised of the promotion and three alternatives which the applicant could request for consideration: a. the applicant could request to be selected for a vacancy and accept promotion with continued assignment to the NCARNG, or b. request delay of promotion with continued assignment to the NCARNG in the present grade, or c. transfer to the United States Army Reserve to accept promotion. After having reviewed the evidence and available regulatory guidance, the NGB, Personnel...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090384C070212

    Original file (2003090384C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Office of Promotions, Reserve Components can only grant a waiver for an upcoming selection board and the request must be received prior to the convening date of the selection board. The opinion also stated that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) is the office that has the authority to grant a waiver for education for past criteria. The regulation also specifies that completion of an OAC not later than the day before the selection board convening date is required...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005994C070206

    Original file (20050005994C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), his mobilization orders, his troop program unit (TPU) to TPU transfer orders, his notification of promotion to major, and his promotion memorandum for major. Promotion action could not be completed due to the following disqualifications: he must pass an APFT within 12 months of the date of promotion, he must meet height/weight standards as prescribed by Army Regulation 600-9 within 12...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006171

    Original file (20150006171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    * There is no appeal process, waivers, or redress for AGR officers selected for REFRAD who are eligible for consideration by the REFRAD board; however, officers selected by the board and were later found to have been ineligible for consideration may have their REFRAD selection nullified with approval of CAR of his representative 8. He provides a FAQs printout, updated on 15 April 2014 that answers questions related to: * Officer population to be considered by the REFRAD board * Selection...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05815-03

    Original file (05815-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Following his first failure of selection he successfully petitioned the BCNR to remove his failure of selection. In our opinion, it is definitely unlikely that should have been selected for promotion had the missing report been added to his record prior to the board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009121C070205

    Original file (20060009121C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the time of his selection for promotion to major on 5 March 1991, he was an ARNG officer. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to major while on active duty. The applicant should have been considered for promotion to major by a mandatory Reserve promotion board one year after the date of his transfer to the IRR in 1994 and again in 1995.