IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100024805 


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 for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4) by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states a few of his Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) were not present due to a mix up at the Army Human Resources Command (AHRC).  He was given instructions by the personnel at AHRC St. Louis on how to fill out the specific dates on his last OERs but the reviewers did not like the dates and sent them back to St. Louis.  He contends that he called to verify that all of his paperwork was in before the promotion board convened and found his OERs were returned and sitting at St. Louis.  His OERs were not returned on time to allow corrections to be made, re-signed, and returned in order to be uploaded in time for review by the promotion board.

3.  The applicant provides a third-party statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a chief warrant officer three (CW3) with a date of rank of 4 October 2004.

2.  He provided a third-party statement in which the applicant's senior rater states that he wrote and signed his OERs during the December 2009 unit battle assembly and then forwarded them to AHRC St. Louis.  The applicant then went back to him and stated the dates had to be changed and the OER's re-signed.  The applicant went back to him three months later and they had to re-sign the OERs because the dates of the rating period had to be changed back.  The whole process took three to four months.

3.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions and Special Actions Branch, AHRC, Fort Knox, KY.  This opinion recommends denial of the applicant's request and indicates that a review of the applicant's board file confirms that his evaluation reports did not arrive at the AHRC Evaluation Center error free within the prescribed time required for viewing by the fiscal year (FY) 2009 or FY2010 promotion selection board.

4.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement and/or rebuttal.  He responded and stated that he originally signed his OERs in December 2009 and forwarded them to Mr. J.R. at St. Louis.  Mr. J.R.'s colleague sent them back and told him to change the dates based on when he joined the unit and not based on when the last OER was done.  Mr. J.R. forwarded them to the board but the review committee sent them back stating the dates were wrong and the OERs were mailed to his home address but he was not living there (he was working at Fort Huachuca, AZ).  Once he received the letter explaining that the dates needed to be changed, he corrected the dates and met at a drill with his senior rater to re-sign the OERs and get them sent back to St. Louis.  By that time it was too late to be seen by the board.

5.  His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains an OER for the period 
8 June 2007 through 7 June 2008 that shows he was rated in his current position.

6.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) specifies in paragraph 3-19 (Promotion Reconsideration Boards) that officers and warrant officers who have either failed selection for promotion, or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered for promotion by either a promotion advisory board or a SSB, if appropriate.  This document also provides that promotion advisory boards/SSBs will convene to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion but whose records, through error, were not submitted to a mandatory promotion selection board for consideration or contained a material error when reviewed by the mandatory selection board.  

7.  Army Regulation 135-155 defines "material error" as one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body) may have 

caused an individual's non-selection by a promotion selection board and, had such errors been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.

8.  This regulation further states that the AHRC Office of Promotions will normally not determine that a material error existed when an administrative error was immaterial or, the officer in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error or omission in the OMPF, or if the officer could have taken timely corrective action such as notifying the office of promotions of the error and providing any relevant documentation that they had.

9.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 3-37k, states reports received at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) after the required amount of time or past a suspense date set for a selection board is not an automatic basis for appealing either the report or selection board results. HQDA will process any valid report so as not to do disservice to the rated Soldier with an excessive amount of nonrated time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for promotion reconsideration to CW4 by an SSB has been carefully considered.

2.  His contentions have been noted; however, the fact that his OER did not arrive at the AHRC Evaluation Center error free within the prescribed time required for viewing by the FY 2009 or FY 2010 promotion selection board does not constitute material error or injustice.  His OMPF includes a valid OER for the period 8 June 2007 through 7 June 2008 which rated him at the position he is currently assigned.  Therefore, the fact that his OER was processed too late for review by the promotion board does not invalidate the selection process.

3.  Although the applicant contended AHRC St. Louis changed the dates on his OER, causing it to be late, his third-party statement did not corroborate that it was AHRC St. Louis who made the errors in the dates.

4.  As a result, there is no basis to support placing his record before a SSB for promotion reconsideration.


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)                                         AR20100024805



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100024805



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1