IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       10 February 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012134 


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, correction of his military records to add two letters of commendation to his official military personnel file (OMPF) and to have his records considered by a Department of the Army Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to colonel.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the promotion board letter of guidance advised service members to provide documentation to support non-rated duty and/or duty that was not otherwise identified within the promotion file.  He contends that the letter of commendation from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) addresses non-rated joint duty over a 7-year period.  He also contends that the letter of commendation from the Selective Service System addresses rated joint service.  He states that the information presented in these two letters addresses combined service that few other officers have experienced.

3.  The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of the 2007 electronic promotion board file as provided by the United States Army Human Resources Command; the two subject letters of commendation; and a letter from the Chief, Office of Promotions, Department of the Army Promotions, United States Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of his application, the applicant was a lieutenant colonel, pay grade O-5, in the United States Army Reserve.
2.  On 26 September 2001, the Region Director, Selective Service System, North Chicago, Illinois, wrote a letter to the applicant wherein he congratulated the applicant for his outstanding performance as Commander of the Cincinnati Selective Service System Detachment.  The director stated that the applicant had restored readiness levels and peacetime capabilities of the assigned military personnel and the volunteer draft board members.  His training and reorganization of the staff within the Detachment and various offices, consisting of Reserve Forces officers assigned from the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, enabled the Selective Service System to better achieve its mission.  Of significant interest was his professionalism and personal influence in dealing with the Office of the Governor of the State of Ohio.  His efforts were reflected through improved relations with the Governor's staff and improved processing times of board member nominations for Presidential appointments.

3.  The applicant's Officer Evaluation Report for the period ending 9 April 2001 indicated he was rated as a Selective Service officer and Commander of Detachment 1-11.

4.  On 17 February 2006, the Commandant, DEOMI, wrote a letter to the applicant wherein he commended the applicant for his exceptional performance as the lead trainer for the adjunct faculty members of the "2006AB Reserve Components Course" at the DEOMI.  The Commandant further stated that the applicant had played a vital role in the success of the DEOMI's Equal Opportunity Advisor training during the previous 7 years.  His selection as the lead trainer for 16 United States Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and civilian adjunct faculty members of the Reserve Components Course with a class size of 87 students from all service branches confirmed that the DEOMI valued his commitment and hard work in this very intense program.  

5.  The applicant's Officer Evaluation Report for the period ending 9 August 2005 noted, in the senior rater comments, that he was a member at the DEOMI.

6.  On 12 October 2007, the applicant wrote a letter to the President, 2007 Department of the Army Reserve Components Colonel Selection Board, wherein he stated that he had reviewed his promotion board file on-line and had forwarded all missing documents to the United States Army Human Resources Command for the board's review.  He also stated that he had performed additional duty with the DEOMI during the previous 7 years as the lead trainer supervising noncommissioned officers, commissioned, and warrant officers of all branches, as well as civilian instructors.

7.  On 21 April 2008, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Department of the Army Promotions, United States Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri, wrote a letter to the applicant in response to his earlier request for reconsideration for promotion under the 2007 promotion criteria.  The Chief stated, in effect, that the 2007 Department of the Army Reserve Components Colonel Selection Board considered his file and that it contained all of his pertinent documents.  The applicant's letter to the Promotion Board President and his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) ending 31 August 2007 were viewed by the board.  The bases for reconsideration in accordance with paragraph 3-19, Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), were OER's, highest completed military and civilian education, and the Silver Star or higher award that were received prior to the board, but were not viewed by the board.  No such documents were omitted from his board file.  Therefore, his request for reconsideration was denied.

8.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Office of Promotions, Department of the Army Promotions, United States Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri.  The opinion stated that the subject letters of commendation were not a basis for SSB consideration.  In accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 3-19, pertinent documents that are a basis for reconsideration by an SSB are OER's, highest military and civilian education, and/or an award of the Silver Star or higher.  The applicant had received no such document prior to11 September 2007, the convening date of the 2007 DA Reserve Components Colonel Selection Board.  Therefore, no such document was omitted from his board file.  Therefore, the opinion recommended that the applicant's request be disapproved.

9.  On 5 December 2008, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion, stating, in effect, that he concurred with the opinion in that the letters of commendation do not constitute a basis for a review by an SSB.  However, he contends that because the subject letters were not in his promotion board packet, there was no documentation to support his letter to the promotion board president.  He further states that the failure to consider this joint service duty was a disservice to him and to any other service member performing such duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that he was unfairly disadvantaged for promotion selection because the promotion board did not consider the subject letters of commendation.

2.  The evidence clearly shows that that the applicant was considered for promotion to colonel in 2007 and that all pertinent documents were provided to the board for review.
3.  The applicant submitted a letter to the President of the Board, wherein he discussed his joint service duty.  This letter was seen by the board.  There is no evidence to suggest that this information was not considered by the board.  In addition, at least one Officer Evaluation Report noted his tour of duty with the Selective Service System and at least one mentioned his service at the DEOMI.

4.  The absence of the subject letters of commendation clearly does not constitute a basis for convening an SSB.

5.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      __________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)                                         AR20080012134





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012134



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1