IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	      23 JUNE 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080018546 


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 promotion to Brigadier General in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have been promoted to Brigadier General for the following reasons:  (1) being fully qualified with exceptional Officer Evaluation Reports and recommendations; (2) that he had a Mobilization Designee, Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) officer assignment during a time period when such an assignment was seldom, if ever, selected for the 07 grade; (3) that he was recommended at least five times by the Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center who probably would not have done so unless he was considered promotable and fully qualified; and 
(4) that he was possibly considered for promotion during a period when the potential existed that one or more of his five recommendations for promotion were reviewed by a Selection/Promotion Board chaired by an unnamed presiding flag officer who was later reprimanded for exhibiting personal favoritism in the selection process.  He states that in spite of more than 10 years of determined research he has been unable to precisely verify the exact date of this matter as outlined due primarily to encountering dated material and the absence of reliable records.  The event regarding the "personal favoritism" is based on his personal recollection and memory on reading of the situation sometime during the time period outlined.  He has encountered many "dead-end" findings including that "it was probably an advisory board and no records are maintained for such boards."  He points out that this apparent transgression transpired some 24 years ago and although he does not recall the exact dates he does recall reading of the allegation and the decision by the officer to elect early retirement rather than face charges.    

3.  The applicant provides a newspaper article which states that he was awarded the Distinguished Merit Alumni Award from the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Illinois 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.  Having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army (RA), the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the USAR on 9 July 1953.  He was promoted to colonel on 5 July 1979.  

3.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was selected by a promotion board for promotion to Brigadier General.

4.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was not properly considered by a promotion board for promotion to Brigadier General.

5.  On 30 July 1984, the applicant was released from the USAR Control Group (Mobilization Designation) for completion of maximum authorized years of service and assigned to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the rank of colonel.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Operations Officer, Office of the Chief Army Reserve, General Officer Management Office, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri.  The advisory official states that after a thorough review of Department of the Army level files, as well as their own records, there is no evidence to substantiate whether or not any improprieties took place during the 1984 selection process.  The fact that an individual is found to be fully qualified for a 

board does not equate to being found best qualified for selection to General Officer.  The advisory official further states that board reports are not kept by their office for disposition at a later date and that due to the nature of the Army Reserve General Officer Duty, this is a voluntary selection board process based on projected vacancies and that no re-look boards are conducted. 

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to afford the applicant the opportunity to submit comments or rebuttal.  On 20 April 2009, the applicant responded.  In summary, he stated that the advisory opinion makes reference to a review of possible improprieties that may or may not have transpired during 1984.  He personally knows of only one possibility of appointment by the selection board during 1984.  He points out that a letter, dated 19 December 1983, makes reference to him being considered for a position with the Defense Logistics Agency while a follow-up letter, dated 
27 January 1984, advises of his non-selection.  He contends that this selection board may have met in 1983 which to his knowledge was his final appointment consideration prior to being transferred to the Retired Reserve in July 1984.  He also states that a letter, dated 13 July 1983, makes mention of four earlier considerations and that the precise dates are unknown.  He also states that he is not familiar with the term "relook board" but if such is required for reconsideration as the name would apply, it would appear that he has a problem.   

8.  The applicant provided a letter of recommendation in support of the applicant's consideration for promotion to Brigadier General, dated 21 June 1983, from a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army.     

9.  The applicant provided a letter, dated 13 July 1983, from the Secretary of the Army to a Member of Congress which thanks the Member of Congress for recommending the applicant for an IMA General Officer position.  This letter also states, in pertinent part, that the applicant had an active General Officer Candidate File at the U.S. Army Reserve Component Personnel and Administration Center, that his file was among those reviewed and considered for nomination for IMA General Officer positions as they became available, and that the applicant had been considered for nomination for the IMA positions of Deputy Chief of Army Reserve, Deputy Director of Transportation, Energy and Troops Support, and Deputy Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans.  The letter states that although the applicant was not nominated for these positions, he was being considered for nomination for the IMA Deputy Director of Operations, Readiness and Mobilization position.  The letter further states that competition for the General Officer positions were extremely keen and that the applicant would receive full consideration commensurate with his experience and qualifications.

10.  The applicant provided a letter, dated 19 December 1983, from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (Provisional), St. Louis, which states, in pertinent part, that he was nominated for assignment to the position of Assistant to the Executive Director (Supply Operations), Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.  He provided a letter, dated 27 January 1984, from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (Provisional), St. Louis, which states, in pertinent part, that he was not selected for the IMA position as Assistant to the Executive Director (Supply Operations), Defense Logistics Agency.  

11.  Paragraph 5-2b (Selection and advisory board requirements) of Army Regulation 135-156 (Reserve Component General Officer Personnel Management), currently in effect, states that a USAR General Officer Assignment Advisory Board (GOAAB) will be convened annually by the Secretary of the Army to consider USAR officers for assignment to General Officer positions during the assignment year beginning 1 April and ending 31 March.  Immediately following the recess of the non-statutory GOAAB, the Secretary of the Army will convene USAR General Officer Promotion Selection Boards (GOPSB) to consider eligible officers for promotion based on the assignment recommendations of the GOAAB. The Department of the Army General Officer Management Office will issue the Secretary of the Army's eligibility criteria for each year's boards via message, and the Chief, Army Reserve General Officer Management Office will issue board guidance via electronic mail. 

12.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14308(g) states that a Reserve officer of the Army or the Air Force who is on a promotion list for promotion to the grade of Brigadier General or Major General as a result of selection by a vacancy promotion board may be promoted to that grade only to fill a vacancy in the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve, as the case may be, in that grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's reasons why he should have been promoted to Brigadier General in 1984 were carefully considered.  

2.  The applicant's contention that he was fully qualified for promotion was noted.  However, the advisory opinion states that the fact that an individual is found to be fully qualified for a board does not equate to being found best qualified for selection to General Officer. 

3.  Although there is evidence of record which shows the applicant was considered for nomination for General Officer positions, there is no evidence of record which shows he was selected by a promotion board for promotion to Brigadier General.
4.  The applicant's contention pertaining to favoritism in the selection process was noted.  However, there is no evidence of record and the applicant has not provided any such evidence which shows he was not properly considered by a promotion board or that any improprieties took place during the 1984 selection process.  

5.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the applicant's requested relief.

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.



      __________XXX____________
               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)                                         AR20080018546



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080018546



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1