IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:  27 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007551 


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 verification the promotion boards had her packet for consideration and reconsideration if the boards cannot verify her packet was available.

2.  The applicant states that, prior to her retirement in June 2006, she never received notice the she was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).  She completed all required basic and advanced training in two specialties, including Command and General Staff College through correspondence (over 263 hours).  She also completed correspondence course work in Civil Affairs.  She believes she met all the requirements for promotion.  Since she did not receive any formal letter indicating she was non-selected for LTC, she is not confident her packets were considered.  She states her military record should show certificates for completion of branch training (Quartermaster and Military Intelligence), and a certificate for completion of Command and General Staff College.

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentation in support of her request. 

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.  The applicant accepted a commission in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), on 20 May 1978, as a Quartermaster Corps second lieutenant.  She served in various assignments and was promoted to major/0-4 with date of rank (DOR) of 19 May 1990.

3.  U.S. Total Army Personnel Command memoranda dated 6 January 1997,
18 June 1998, 25 March 1999, and 9 May 2000 informed her she had been considered but not selected for promotion.  Each memorandum stated, "The board examined the performance portion of your official military record...."  Additionally, the memorandum stated, "Selection boards do not record the reason for selection or nonselection of individual officers.  Your career manager may be able to assist you in improving your official file and to advise you regarding specific actions which may increase your potential for promotion."
 
4.  A 23 May 2000 USAR Personnel Command memorandum, subject:  Options Upon Notification for Promotion After Second Consideration, 	provided the applicant with information and options available to her as a result of nonselection for promotion.  Among the options was that, if eligible, she could request transfer to the Retired Reserve.

5.  USAR Command Orders C-06-016668, dated 15 June 2000, show she was reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the Retired Reserve, effective 14 June 2000, as a MAJ.  The reason shows completion of   20 or more years reserve duty.

6.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky.  The advisory official stated "Based on the information provided and a review of our records, [the applicant] reached retirement status effective 14 June 2000.  Retired military personnel (retire recall) recalled to active duty in a retired status are not eligible for promotion consideration." 

7.  On 20 June 2012, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  In her response she states:

	a.  she was never recalled to active duty.  She did apply for recall but was not selected.

	b.  she remained as an active troop program unit (TPU) officer until she was mandatorily removed.  She was unable to get her records corrected or updated to show she had met more than the minimum requirements for promotion to LTC.

	c.  She has been waiting in the Retired Control Group unable to get any resolution for more than 12 years.  She would like to have some closure so she can put this behind her.

	d.  she contends her promotion dates for eligibility were incorrect because there were five non-selection letters issued, indicating there was confusion with different dates of promotion eligibility.  (She apologizes for the oversight on the DD Form 149 which states she had not received any notification, when in fact she had received five letters of non-selection).  

	e.  according to Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officer and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) she met all "fully qualified" requirements and she provided the (promotion) board with any missing documents. 

	f.  she submitted 47 documents which she asserts support her claim of being eligible and fully qualified for promotion to LTC.  (These include pages from 
AR 135-155 showing she met the time in grade and military education requirements, her earlier promotion orders, memoranda showing her nonselection for promotion, memoranda she sent to earlier promotion boards forwarding documents reflecting to her achievements,  DA Forms 67-8 (Officer Evaluation Reports), DA Forms 1059 (Academic Evaluation Reports), letters and certificates of achievement, and several other documents showing her military achievements and qualifications).  

	g.  She wants to be told what else she could have done to get her mandatory promotion.  There appears to be no reason why she was passed over for promotion.  



8.  Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the USAR and Army National Guard.  Paragraph 4-33 states that a MAJ on the Reserve Active-Status List who has failed of selection for promotion to LTC for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to LTC, will be separated unless the officer has a remaining service obligation or can be credited with 18 or more but less than 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay.  Separation will be on the later of the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned service, or the first day of the seventh month after the approval date of the promotion board report that nonselected the officer for the second time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she should be reconsidered for LTC if the boards cannot verify her packets were considered.   She states there must have been confusion over her eligibility dates because she received five notifications of nonselection.

2.  The available records clearly show that the applicant was considered at least twice for promotion to major and was not selected.  The notification memoranda specifically state that the board examined the performance portion of her official military record and that selection boards do not record the reason for the selection or nonselection of individual officers.  They recommended she contact her career manager for help.

3.  There is no available evidence showing she contacted her career manager for assistance or advice on improving her file or regarding specific actions which may have increased her potential for promotion.  

4.  The available records show she was issued four memoranda informing her of nonselection for promotion.  There is no available evidence showing why her records were considered by four promotion boards, or that there was confusion over her promotion eligibility.  Promotions during the post-Operation Desert Storm drawdown period were highly competitive.

5.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20110001111



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007551



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1