IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 7 April 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100022047
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 reconsideration of his earlier request for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5.
2. The applicant states he is presenting new evidence and argument that was not previously considered by the Board.
a. He takes issue with the way the Record of Proceedings (ROP) was written regarding the reference to filing an application within 3 years of discovery. He explains that he had no way of knowing there was an error until approval of the Bronze Star Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster was approved in 2009. Accordingly, he feels he met the 3-year obligation.
b. He takes exception to the way the ROP was presented. The five short paragraphs give the impression that he was promoted to major (MAJ)/O-4 after award of the second Bronze Star Medal. The promotion board had selected him for promotion several months before receiving this award. However, having the second Bronze Star Medal in his records would have been extremely important for his promotion consideration for LTC.
c. He contends that the recent approval of the second Bronze Star Medal is significant and meets the requirement of material error because the award shows how he performed in combat, which is a top priority when one is being considered for promotion.
3. The applicant provides no additional documents.
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 AR20090021582, on 10 June 2010.
2. The applicant makes three arguments, two of which discuss the content and format of the ROP and one speaking of material error. In the interest of justice, these arguments should be considered by the Board.
3. The original ROP:
a. contains a standardized paragraph explaining the basic statute of limitations requirement as it applies to filing applications to this Board;
b. shows a substantive review of his case was conducted despite the 3-year statute of limitations;
c. provided several short paragraphs informing the Board of the essential elements of the case and explaining the sequence of events concerning the applicant's issue;
d. shows in paragraph 4 of the Consideration of Evidence (COE) the applicant was promoted to major in 1973;
e. shows in paragraph 7 of the COE that the subject award was approved in 2009 for his meritorious service in 1971 and 1972;
f. clearly stated in paragraph 9c of the COE that awards below the Silver Star that are missing from the record do not constitute a material error requiring consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for promotion to LTC based on the recent approval of a second Bronze Star Medal.
2. The applicant argues that because he had no way of knowing there was an error until the approval of the Bronze Star Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster in
2009, he feels he met the 3-year obligation. The original ROP clearly states that the Board elected to conduct a substantive review despite the 3-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, this argument is of no consequence.
3. The applicant takes exception to the way in which the original ROP was written. Specifically, he contends that five short paragraphs give the impression that he was promoted to major after award of the Bronze Star Medal and does not show how important the award would have been for his promotion consideration to LTC. Paragraph 7 of the COE clearly states that the subject award was approved in 2009 for his meritorious service in 1971 and 1972. Furthermore, paragraph 4 of the COE clearly states that the applicant was promoted to major in 1973. The issue was clearly and concisely presented to the Board. There is no evidence showing that this presentation was misleading or incomplete. Accordingly, this argument has no merit.
4. The applicant contends that the recent approval of the second Bronze Star Medal is significant and meets the requirement of material error because it shows how he performed in combat, which is a top priority when being considered for promotion. This issue was clearly discussed in paragraph 9c of the original ROP. To reiterate, an officer will not be considered or reconsidered by an SSB based on missing commendatory data for awards below the Silver Star. Therefore, the applicant's argument is without merit.
5. The applicant's arguments have been given careful consideration. However, they do not sufficiently show that what the Board originally determined was unjust or inequitable.
6. There is no error or injustice in this case requiring further Board action.
7. Therefore, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090021582, dated 10 June 2010.
_______ _ 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) AR20100022047
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100022047
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019671
Concerning the applicant's Vietnam Service Medal: * his DD Form 214 showed only the Vietnam Service Medal * his record indicated he was entitled to 4 bronze service stars to be affixed to the medal * the original ROP (Docket Number AR20110000274) deleted the medal without bronze service stars, then added the medal with 4 bronze service stars * a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) accomplished the correction on 20 October 2011 The applicant's Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012847
The applicant lists the following inconsistencies, errors, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact in the CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE (COE) portion of the ROP: a. paragraph 4 states, "On 25 January 1972, he entered active duty as an MP Regular Army (RA) officer" when, in fact, he entered on active duty on 12 October 1969. b. paragraphs 7-9 discuss his DA Form 67-8 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) as a Product Manager for Physical Security Equipment (PM-PSE) during the period...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011865
g. AR20110002949 ROP, dated 1 March 2011, which shows the Board recommended granting the individual concerned a military education waiver and promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to LTC, which was a supplemental to an earlier case and in which the Board corrected that applicants records to show he was granted a military education waiver. The Board granted him an education waiver as a result of him not being promoted to MAJ in a timely manner which thus...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009470
The applicant provided three UMRs, dated 2 June 2010, 24 August 2010, and 16 July 2011, which show: a. MSG CJ also stated that the applicant must complete the attached counseling and, by 27 May 2012, be reassigned to a valid position that meets COE and grade requirements or be subject to involuntary transfer to another unit, to the IRR, or elect retirement. (i) As a COE (MILTECH 365th) and in order to meet the senior grade overstrength guidance, she took a reduction in rank from SGM/E-9 to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025429
The applicant states the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) rubber-stamped the earlier decision by the Army Decorations Board (ADB) and made no attempt to discern the truth about what occurred on 17 October 1967 when her father was killed in action in Vietnam. (2) On 17 June 2002, the former Adjutant, 1st Brigade, 1st ID, in a statement in support of award of the MOH to 1LT ACW, [then] Commander, Company D, 2/28th Infantry, for actions on 17 October 1967 in Vietnam,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022486
A review of the original ROP and the records on file at the Army Decorations Board (ADB) confirm that, except for the two OER's, all of the documents submitted with this request for reconsideration have been previously considered and do not constitute new evidence. The original ROP states: a. the applicant was awarded the DFC for his heroic actions in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN); b. in August 2009, the Commander, HRC disapproved forwarding a recommendation to the Senior Army Decorations...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02723
A complete copy of the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION: The applicant asserts he is not applying for a TIG waiver under Section 1370(a)(2)(D) but that his retirement in the grade of LTC be approved under Section 1370(a)(2)(A) based on his more than two years of service in that grade; or, in the alternative, his DOR for LTC be changed to reflect three years TIG based on the equities...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015244
Reconsideration of his previous request for administrative corrections to his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation - Honorable Discharge), as follows: (1) Change Item 5 (Component) to show Infantry instead of AUS (for Army of the United States); (2) Change Item 6 (Organization) to show he was assigned to Company L, 135th Infantry Regiment, instead of Medical Detachment, 135th Infantry Regiment (shown as MED DET 135TH INF); (3) Change Item 30 (Military Occupational...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002017
The Army G-1 admits yes it was wrong to have the COL serve on so many PSBs, which is clearly inconsistent with the Army G-1 SOP, but since the other five FY09 board members were properly selected under the G-1 SOP; it is okay for the COL to vote his file for a third time in August 2009. j. he never alleged an "entitlement to promotion to COL" as inappropriately stated in the ROP. (1) If the Secretary of the Military Department concerned determines that because of administrative error a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017133
The applicant requests reconsideration of her earlier request for promotion consideration by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to colonel (COL) by the fiscal year 2013 (FY13) Colonel Army, Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE), Operational Support (OS), and Forces Sustainment (FS) Promotion Selection Boards (PSBs). The original ROP shows that: a. the Board had reviewed the evidence to include an advisory opinion from HRC recommending denial of the applicant's request for an SSB; b....