IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110025012 


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, consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O5 by a Special Selection Board (SSB). 

2.  He states his non-selection for promotion to LTC was based on the Army failing to account for his prior active duty service with the Coast Guard on his Officer Record Brief (ORB).  He adds that these omissions have unfairly prejudiced his opportunities for promotion.  He maintains that each ORB seen by the promotion boards have omitted his previous assignments and his dates of rank.  

3.  He also states his ORB shows only five years of assignments and his date of rank to major (MAJ)/O4.  He opines his ORB creates a false impression that he is a direct commissioned officer with no prior military training or experience before entering the Army.  He states there is no evidence that the promotion board was informed and considered his performance/assignments in acquisition law.

4.  He provides the following:

* Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 and 2011 LTC, Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps, Selection Board Results
* E-mail, subject:  SSB Request, dated 30 November 2011
* Applicant's FY 2011 Promotion Board File



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior service in the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), on 14 October 2005, he was appointed as a Regular Army MAJ in the JAG Corps.  His date of rank to MAJ is listed as 1 June 2004.

2.  On 30 November 2011, Human Resources Command (HRC), Officer Promotions, responded to the applicant's request for reconsideration of promotion to LTC by an SSB.  HRC stated that a review of his ORB and board file, along with the information received, does not constitute the circumstances for an SSB.  

   a.  The HRC representative stated that the applicant's ORB from his My Board File (MBF) had a brief date of 2 August 2011 and his assignment information reflected a projected assignment date of 15 August 2011 with a "not available" duty title.  He said this was not grounds for an SSB.  The representative said in the applicant's letter to the president of the board, he informed them of his pending assignment as Chief, Contract and Fiscal Law.  He also informed the board of his USCG experience which negates his assumption about the board erroneously discounting his prior service or fully evaluating his leadership capabilities.  Additionally, the HRC representative stated six of the applicant's USCG evaluation reports were present in his board file and covered a time span from 1997 through 2004.

   b.  The HRC representative said the applicant's service start date of 2006 was actually a "Cohort Year Group" and accurately reflected "FY 2006."  His ORB, dated 28 November 2011, still reflected only one Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and the second MSM was reflected in his MBF and therefore, was visible to the board.  He quoted Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 7-3, and stated that the applicant communicated with the board and could have included any data he deemed necessary to inform the board of any discrepancies in his record.  

   c.  He further stated that the decision to recommend an officer for promotion was based on the selection board's collective judgment as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered.  A non-selection did not mean the applicant was not a quality officer and any opinions given from others were speculative in nature, as they did not vote his record.



3.  The applicant provided his FY 2011 Promotion Board file which included his Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) from the USCG (August 1997 to June 2004) and as a JAG officer (April 2006 to June 2010), two MSM certificates, academic records, the Army Commendation Medal certificate, citation for the Coast Guard Achievement Medal, Department of the Army photograph, ORB, and a letter to the president of the LTC JAG Corps Promotion Selection Board.  

	a.  His ORB shows his basic date of appointment as 14 October 2005.  It also shows he received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the USCG Academy in 1993.

	b.  In his letter to the president of the board, he explained his USCG and private practice experience had been invaluable components of his immediate success as an attorney and leader in the JAG Corps.  He continued by stating he was the youngest officer ever to qualify as a Watch Officer at the Coast Guard Headquarters Command Center.  He said after he was recalled to active duty with the USCG, he transferred services to continue serving as a JAG.  He concluded that as he transferred to another billet (Chief, Contract and Fiscal Law/Expeditionary Contracting Command) he respectfully requests that the board recognize the value of his prior service, acknowledge his current performance, and consider him suitability for promotion accordingly.

4.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes policy and procedures to consider, select, and promote commissioned officers of the Army.  

   a.  Paragraph 4-3 states officers are responsible for presenting the most accurate information to the promotion selection board.  Each eligible officer and the representative of the Officer Records Center (OFRC) will audit the ORB.  The OFRC will audit all ORBs with the officer personally unless the officer is not available to audit his or her ORB or the officer's signature cannot be obtained in a timely manner.

   b.  Officers eligible for consideration may write to the board to provide documents and information calling attention to any matter concerning themselves that they consider important to their consideration.  Written memoranda sent to a promotion selection board will be considered if received not later than the date the board convenes.  Any memorandum considered by a promotion board will become a matter of record to be maintained with the records of the board. 

   c.  Paragraph 7-3 states an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when an administrative error was immaterial, or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or official military personnel file (OMPF).  The ORB is a summary document of information generally available elsewhere in the officer's record.  It is the officer's responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. There is no evidence, and the applicant has failed to provide any, to show that he should be reconsidered for promotion by an SSB.  Reconsideration by an SSB is not authorized when an administrative error was immaterial, or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or OMPF.  

2.  Although he maintains that he was not selected for promotion to LTC due to his service in the USCG not being properly accounted for on his ORB, the evidence of record shows otherwise.  The evidence shows his ORB lists his Bachelor of Science Degree from the USCG Academy in 1993.  Additionally, as verified by HRC and listed in his FY 2011 Promotion Board File packet, he acknowledged his USCG experience in a letter to the president of the FY 2011 LTC JAG Corps Promotion Selection Board.  Additionally, he provided his OERs from the Coast Guard from August 1997 through June 2004.  Therefore, his claim that the omission of his USCG service prejudiced his opportunity for promotion is not supported by the available evidence.

3.  Further, as cited in the above regulation, the officer is responsible for presenting the most accurate information to the promotion selection board.  The eligible officer and the OFRC will audit the ORB.  The applicant has provided no evidence nor did he state in his application that he was not afforded the opportunity to review his records prior to the selection board.  Additionally, he was well aware of his right to write a letter to the promotion board's president and call attention to any matter concerning himself that he considered important to their consideration.  Just as he mentioned his USCG experience to the board, he could have also addressed his performance and/or assignments in acquisition law.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for 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.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20110025012





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110025012



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1