IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 April 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080018272
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 correction of his military records to show his date of rank for major as 1 March 2008.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he and two other officers were erroneously considered and selected for promotion to major. He was eligible for a below the zone (BZ) consideration based on his 1 June 2002 date of rank for captain. However, his records were considered along with those officers in the primary zone (PZ). He was given a promotion sequence number of 390 and was scheduled to be promoted on 1 March 2008. When the error was discovered, he was removed from the selection list and so informed. He was subsequently selected for promotion to major by the 2008 fiscal year promotion board. The applicant contends that his date of rank for major should be 1 March 2008, based on his original selection in 2007.
3. The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of a letter of support from his commander; the Promotion Message for March 2008; a notification memorandum of erroneous selection for promotion; an Inspector General Action Request; and his DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving as a major in the Regular Army. His date of rank and effective date are 1 November 2008.
2. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, United States Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri. It stated that the applicant was considered and selected for promotion by the 2007 Major, Force Sustainment Promotion Selection Board. He was considered for promotion under the understanding that his date of rank fell in the primary zone of consideration (1 April 2001 through
31 March 2002). The applicant's actual date of rank is 1 June 2002, which placed him in the below the zone (BZ) population (1 April 2002 through 28 February 2003). As a result of his being erroneously selected as part of the PZ, he was removed from the promotion standing list. The advisory opinion recommended that the applicant's request for a date of rank for major of 1 March 2008 be denied.
3. On 28 February 2009, the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for his information and opportunity to rebut. No response was received.
4. On 27 October 2008, the applicant's commander wrote a memorandum to the Board on behalf of the applicant. The commander stated, in effect, that the applicant was erroneously considered for promotion in 2007 and assigned a promotion sequence number. As a result of this error, the applicant was not provided an opportunity to be considered against his peers in the BZ. The applicant was subsequently selected for promotion by the 2008 Major Promotion Board. Therefore, the commander requested that the applicant's date of rank for major be corrected to 1 March 2008.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) provides in pertinent part, that the name of any officer erroneously considered and selected for promotion will be administratively deleted from the promotion list. This regulation further provides that an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by a special selection board when the consideration in question involved an officer in the BZ.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his date of rank for major should be 1 March 2008 based on his selection for promotion by the 2007 promotion board.
2. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was considered and selected for promotion to major by the 2007 promotion board. Due to an administrative error resulting in his not being properly considered under the BZ criteria, his name was removed from the promotion list.
3. Unfortunately, there is no absolute way of knowing if he would have been selected for promotion under the criteria used for those individuals considered in the BZ. A special selection board is not an option for BZ considerations.
4. 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) AR20080018272
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080018272
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018275
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his date of rank for major to 1 March 2008. The applicant submitted a memorandum dated 24 January 2008, from the Deputy Chief, Promotions, USAHRC, Alexandria, which informed the applicant and his chain of command that the applicant was considered for promotion with an erroneous understanding that his date of rank fell in the primary zone (PZ) criteria [officers with dates of rank for captain from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002]. In the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018273
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his date of rank for major to 1 March 2008. In an advisory opinion, dated 26 February 2009, the Chief, Special Actions, DA Promotions Branch, USAHRC, St. Louis, Missouri, stated that the applicant was requesting his date of rank for major be adjusted to 1 March 2008, the original scheduled approval date for the FY 07 promotion board. The applicant was considered and selected for promotion by the FY08 promotion board and promoted to major...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015237
The applicant was not selected for promotion. Paragraph 1-34 of Army Regulation 600-8-29 states, in pertinent part, that selection boards considering officers for promotion to LTC may recommend outstanding officers from BZ of consideration. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was ordered to active duty on 1 October 2006.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080015632
If the applicant had already completed his degree requirements he would have been promoted on 1 October 2002, his Promotion Eligibility Date (PED). It was also noted that officers commissioned through OCS are briefed on the requirement to complete their degree before being eligible for promotion to captain but they are not notified individually to submit a waiver for the education requirement prior to the captains board. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010050
He states that charges were not brought against him by the military, and the civilian charges were expunged from his record on 14 May 2008. The applicant's DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Reports) filed in his OMPF from the period beginning 1 March 2006 through 30 September 2008 do not show any reference to a criminal investigation, incident report, or charges. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by referring...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004043
The applicant requests his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 1 May 2011 through 27 December 2011 be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant states: * the contested OER was not written in accordance with the prescribed rating scheme * the rating scheme stated that he, a company commander, would be rated by the battalion commander and senior rated by the Division Deputy Commanding General (Maneuver) * the OER was written after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015404
The applicant states that someone from the Promotion Vacancy Board (PVB) removed his promotion packet from consideration because he was being considered by a mandatory promotion board as a below the zone (BZ) officer. The available evidence shows the applicant was erroneously not considered by a PVB for promotion to LTC. If an officer is erroneously not considered by a PVB, the position for which he is applying is filled by another officer.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014503
The applicant requests: a. his date of rank (DOR) to lieutenant colonel (LTC) be adjusted from 13 April 2005 to 15 June 2008 to correspond with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) adjusted Cohort Year Group 1993; b. his four Promotion Board pass-over's be zeroed out; c. the corrected record be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) related to Promotions, Command Senior Service College (SSC), and Professor of Military Science (PMS); and d. his name be deleted from the August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010877
* Soldiers selected would attend Class 66 which begins in August 2015 * Selected Soldiers must complete a 3-year service obligation upon promotion to SGM * Soldiers must have sufficient remaining service to complete the service obligation by their 32nd year of active service * only NCOs with a maximum of 26 years of active federal service will be otherwise eligible for selection consideration by the board to attend the USASMC * because the maximum age for continued active federal service is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009996
The applicant states that he submitted a request for an SSB to address material omissions and errors in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) as it appeared before the 12 August 2008 promotion board. Any memorandum considered by a promotion board will become a matter of record to be maintained with the records of the board. It is also noted that the applicant's OER with an end date of 4 June 2007 has been identified as having one "minor negative discrepancy" (i.e., an "X"...