IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120014906 


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 she be granted an education waiver and consideration for promotion to the rank/grade of major (MAJ)/O-4 by a special selection board (SSB) under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 MAJ Army Promotion List (APL) Promotion Selection Board criteria.  She also requests retroactive payment of all back pay and entitlements associated with this promotion.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she was considered for promotion from captain (CPT)/O-3 to MAJ by the 2007 APL board, but she was not selected by reason of not being educationally qualified due to the fact she has not completed the second phase of the Captains Career Course (CCC).  She contends she was not educationally qualified due to no fault of her own.  She attests her numerous attempts to enroll in the required training were continuously denied due to an erroneous code in her record which indicated she was ineligible to attend the course due to a medical condition.  She has fought to resolve this matter for years and in spite of Congressional involvement and the Army admitting a mistake was made, it still has not been fixed.  She contends she should be promoted to MAJ based upon the existence of this error and her DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Reports (OER)) which note she should be promoted.

3.  The applicant provides:

* her Congressional Inquiry and the response from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)
* four DA Forms 67-9

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's records show she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the rank of second lieutenant/O-1 and she executed an Oath of Office on 13 May 1995.  She completed the Transportation Officer Basic Course 26 January 1996.

3.  She was considered for promotion from first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 to CPT, but not selected by the FY 2000 thru FY 2002 Department of the Army Reserve Components Mandatory Selection Boards.  She was selected by the FY 2003 board and was promoted from 1LT to CPT on 8 May 2003.

4.  A review of the applicant's electronic record in the Soldier Management System portion of the Interactive Web-based System (IWS) which is maintained by HRC revealed an email, dated 19 August 2003, wherein her career manager advised her on the procedures for attending the Officer Advanced Course (OAC) (currently known as the CCC).  

5.  On 11 December 2003, she was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and served in Kuwait and Iraq from 13 February through 26 October 2004.  She was released from active duty on 30 November 2004.  She enrolled in and completed the nonresident portion (Phase 1) of the CCC in 2004 while deployed to Kuwait.

6.  Her OERs for the periods ending 25 September 2004 and 4 May 2007 each show in:

	a.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)) her raters evaluated her performance during the rating period and her potential for promotion as "Satisfactory performance, promote" and recommended that she be promoted with her peers.
	b.  Part VII (Senior Rater) her senior raters evaluated her promotion potential to the next high grade as "Fully qualified" and recommended that she be promoted with her peers.

7.  Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 31 August 2006, Subject:  Reserve Component Promotion Board Military Education (MILED) Waiver Guidance states that, in accordance with paragraph 2-15b of Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), the Chief, Office of Promotions, may grant waivers for non-statutory MILED promotion requirements and grant MILED waivers to requesting officers.  In order to receive a waiver for promotion consideration to MAJ, a captain must have "completed at a minimum the non-resident portion of the CCC and be scheduled for the resident phase."

8.  Her record contains a DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) which shows an informal PEB was convened at Fort Sam Houston, TX on 27 September 2007 to determine whether or not she was medically fit for continued service.  She was placed on permanent profile on 29 June 2006 for major depressive disorder which restricted her ability to carry/fire an individual weapon and deploy.  This profile was produced in response to a physician statement, dated 30 March 2006, indicating that she had bipolar features for which she was undergoing medication adjustment during which she would not be suitable for military deployment or to handle a weapon.  Despite the requirement for a medication adjustment in March 2006, she had continued to perform as a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps instructor at a university and her performance was described as exceptional.  Her commander recommended retention.  In view of her ongoing exceptional performance, it was determined the restrictions imposed in the June 2006 profile should be reviewed and updated reflecting only her current limitations.  The PEB further determined she was physically fit for duty and her case was adjudicated as a nonduty-related case and referred for Case Disposition under Reserve Component regulations.  A copy of the informal PEB Proceedings was forwarded to the applicant on           28 September 2008 and was subsequently returned to the PEB undelivered.  Further efforts to locate the applicant and deliver the proceedings failed.  Ultimately, it was determined every reasonable effort had been made to effect delivery and obtain the applicant's response, but as of 7 November 2007 she had not responded.  As a result, her case was forwarded for further processing in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 7-20e.

9.  On 5 December 2007, the applicant's career manager informed her, via email, that the HRC records did not indicate she was educationally qualified for the upcoming promotion board and advised her that "A Soldier that is non-educationally qualified for promotion has no chance of being selected for promotion."  The career manager also provided the applicant a list of documents she should send to verify the status of her MILED level along with an email address for the MAJ APL board.

10.  On 13 February 2008, a representative of the applicant's career management office informed her that her records were going before the MAJ promotion board and in order to be considered educationally qualified for promotion to MAJ in the USAR, she must have proof of a Bachelor's Degree and completion of the CCC.  The representative also informed the applicant that documentation showing proof of completion of the CCC was missing from her record.  She was further advised to review her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (currently known as Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR)) and send missing AMHRR documents to include military and civilian diplomas, award certificates, and profiled OERs in a scanned format via email to the address provided.  Additionally, she was advised to submit any non-AMHRR documents such as a letter to the board, Personnel Qualification Record (PQR), and Officer Record Brief (ORB) via email and which electronic formats were acceptable (to include Portable Document Format (PDF)).  She was advised that the cutoff for submitting documents to the board was 22 February 2008.

11.  On 20 February 2008, the applicant forwarded a copy of her PEB results to Sergeant First Class (SFC) F, who in turn informed her that he also needed the profile upon which the PEB was based.

12.  The applicant provides a memorandum addressed to President, 2008 MAJ APL Board, dated 20 February 2008, Subject:  2008 MAJ APL Board.  She stated she had reviewed her board file on-line.  She further stated the purpose of the memorandum was to address her having not completed Phase 2 of the CCC.
She attested that in 2003, she was promoted to CPT and mobilized, but her unit did not deploy.  Once home she immediately requested to attend CCC Phase 2.  She was denied attendance due to a record number of senior officers returning from deployment.  Within 4 months of returning home, she was cross-leveled to another unit and deployed to Kuwait.  She completed Phase 1 during deployment and was planning to attend Phase 2 right after demobilization.  During demobilization in November 2004, she was referred for combat/operation stress reaction.  On 5 December 2004, she visited the emergency room and was referred to a therapist.  She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression (supporting documentation available upon request).  She was later hospitalized, placed on a profile, and transferred to a Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students (TTHS) status until she could be reviewed by a military occupational specialty (MOS) medical review board (MMRB), which prevented her from attending any military schools.  She was found fit for duty, released from TTHS, and transferred back to her unit.

13.  The applicant provides an email which shows that on 20 February 2008 she attempted to forward the memorandum to the president of the promotion board via email; five minutes later she received the following response from the board "Unable to open, please send pdf."  She does not provide any subsequent correspondence which shows the board acknowledged receipt of her memorandum in the proper format. 

14.  The applicant provides an email, dated 3 May 2008, wherein her training noncommissioned officer (NCO) notified her that an application had been submitted on her behalf for attendance of Phase 2 of the CCC during the period 21 July through 1 August 2008.  On 29 May 2008, her training NCO sent an email to another officer to inquire about the status of her application for the course.

15.  On 4 June 2008, a representative of the applicant's career management office acknowledged receipt of her application for attendance of Phase 2 of the CCC and advised her that in order to be qualified to attend any resident class she must have a current security clearance, updated physical medical examination, and updated Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  She advised the applicant that SMS showed her physical had expired and that she had failed APFT height and weight standards.  She further advised the applicant to schedule to have both conducted and to ensure her unit updated this data in the Regional Level Application Software (RLAS).  She concluded by telling the applicant her request could not be approved until these actions were completed.

16.  The applicant provides emails exchanged between herself and her career manager between 5 January and 19 February 2009 which shows she and her personnel services NCO (PSNCO) were having difficulty getting her the results of her updated physical into the appropriate database, so the career manager offered to help resolve the matter.

17.  The applicant provides an email, dated 24 July 2009, which shows a representative of her career management office acknowledged receipt of her application for attendance of Phase 2 of the CCC scheduled to begin on 20 March 2010.  However, her record showed that she had a medical-related personnel action pending which resulted in a temporary physical disqualification.
She advised the applicant to contact the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) for further guidance and provided her two telephone numbers to do so.  She concluded by telling the applicant her request could not be approved until this action was corrected.
18.  The applicant provides copies of three memoranda addressed to the President of the 2010 MAJ APL Promotion Selection Board, dated 10 February 2010, wherein she attested she had reviewed her board file on-line and requested that she be granted a MILED waiver so her record would be coded educationally qualified, thereby affording her an opportunity to be considered for promotion by the upcoming MAJ APL Board.  She also addressed why she had not completed CCC Phase 2.  She explained she was promoted to CPT in 2003 and mobilized, but did not deploy.  She immediately requested enrollment into Phase 2, but was denied due to the record number of senior officers returning from deployment.  Within 4 months, she was cross-leveled and deployed to Kuwait where she completed Phase 1.  During demobilization in November 2004, after demonstrating combat stress reaction, she was referred for assessment.  She was diagnosed with and subsequently treated for PTSD.  As a result, she was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board and a subsequent PEB.  The PEB found her fit for duty, with specified limitations on 21 November 2007, but her profile was never downgraded to allow her to attend school.  She attested that to date, she had been unsuccessful in updating her records, which would afford her an opportunity to attend and successfully complete CCC Phase 2.  Numerous email requests had been met with rejection.  Subsequent to the finding of fit for duty, a Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) was conducted at her unit in November 2009.  As a result, she was given a permanent P3 profile for lower body although she has never visited any physician or made mention of any pain in her legs.  Now, she had to get that matter clarified before the P3 profile could be removed.  She was determined and willing to compete for promotion, but had not been able to do so with a P3 profile.

19.  On 24 February 2010, the Chief, Department of the Army (DA) Promotions, HRC, St. Louis, MO, replied to the applicant's request for a MILED waiver for the 2010 MAJ DA Reserve Components Selection Board.  He informed her that the MILED requirement for selection to MAJ is the completion of the officer advanced course or equivalent.  In order to be eligible for a waiver, based on guidance in the memorandum from the Director of Military Personnel Management, dated    31 August 2006, the officer must have completed at a minimum the non-resident portion of the course and be scheduled for the resident phase.  Since she did not meet these requirements, he must deny her waiver request.

20.  The applicant provides email correspondence exchanged between her and representatives of the USAR Command (USARC) Inspector General (IG) office between 9 and 11 August 2010.  These emails indicate the applicant had submitted a request for a Congressional inquiry on her behalf and was attempting to submit an IG request into the facts and circumstances of her non-selection for promotion to MAJ.

21.  The applicant provides a letter rendered by the Chief of Staff (CofS), OTSG, USARC, on 15 September 2010 in response to an inquiry submitted on her behalf by a Member of Congress (MOC) regarding her inability to attend mandatory military schooling required for promotion to the rank of MAJ.  The CofS informed the MOC the Surgeon's staff had reviewed the applicant's medical records and spoken to her directly.  Based on research in this situation, the applicant was properly given a permanent physical profile on 29 June 2006 for a validated medical condition.  In accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Medical Fitness Standards) the physical profile issued required the applicant to be evaluated by an MEB to determine her fitness for duty.  The physical profile also made the applicant ineligible to attend military schooling until such time as the MEB was completed.  The applicant was evaluated by an MEB on 21 November 2007 and was found fit for duty, thus making her eligible to attend her schooling.  In accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, the MEB should have entered a profile code "Y" into the Army medical readiness data system indicating the MEB finding.  The profile code was never entered into the system before it appeared that the applicant was not eligible to attend school and she was repeatedly denied attendance.  The profile code has now been properly captured.  In closing, the CofS stated the USAR remains absolutely dedicated to doing all it can to take care of Army Reserve Soldiers.

22.  On 3 December 2010, the applicant provided a response to the MOC regarding the OTSG's letter.  She attested the OTSG acknowledged that she had been wronged, but did not provide a solution.  She posed the following questions: 
"How is the Army going to right their wrong?  Why have they not promoted me as they have found the error on their part?  Am I supposed to settle for acknowledgement of being done wrong and walk away with a smile?"  The applicant then provided names of other officers who had been promoted while being on a permanent P3 profile or in spite of not completing requisite military schooling.  She attested she new several individuals who had been granted exceptions to policy without even trying to do what was required.  She provided her last three OERs in order to show her recent performance and noted her rating chain had recognized her potential and recommended that she be promoted as soon as possible and assigned more responsibilities.

23.  On 8 February 2011, the applicant's career manager informed her via email that he was scrubbing her board file for the MAJ APL promotion board which was scheduled to convene on or about 8 March 2011 and that their records did not indicate she was educationally qualified for the upcoming board as a result of completing either the OAC or CCC.  He advised her that a Soldier who is non-educationally qualified for promotion has LITTLE (emphasis added) or no chance of being selected for promotion.  He also provided her a copy of the current board announcement message and advised her to carefully read it, review her AMHRR, and work with her unit to get her record updated.  The career manager advised the applicant of the following deficiencies he had noticed in her AMHRR:

* no transcripts indicating she had a baccalaureate degree or higher on file
* awards worn in her official photo were not supported by documentation in her board folder; no awards or badges were supported by her file
* no ORB or PQR on file
* currently showing a P3 profile, but no current surgeon's review
* no DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report) or diploma for completion of the Officer Basic Course, OAC, or CCC

24.  On 2 March 2011, the applicant's career manager informed her via email that upon further review of the documents she had sent to be uploaded to her board file:

* as previously mentioned, many were very faint and may not be accepted
* the DA Form 1059 she had sent was blank and would not be submitted
* the documents already in her record would not be resubmitted
* her signature on her DA Form 2-1 was so faint it could not be read; it would be submitted but may not be accepted
* her letter to the Board was supposed to be submitted to a separate email address; he forwarded the letter to that address, but it was closed and no longer accepting documents

25.  The Deputy CofS, G-1, USARC, notified the applicant via memorandum that a DA Reserve Components promotion selection board (PSB) had convened to consider officers for promotion to the next higher grade.  Much to the Army's regret, many highly qualified officers were not recommended for promotion because established strength ceilings limited the number of considered officers that could be selected.  The Secretary of the Army (SECARMY) recognized the unavoidable fact that not all of the Army's professional officer corps can be promoted to each successive grade; therefore, he directed that a selective continuation (SELCON) board convene to consider for continued service on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) those officers who were twice non-selected by the PSB.  Even though she had not been selected for promotion, the SELCON board had recommended her for continuation in her present grade and the SECARMY approved that recommendation.  He advised the applicant that unless she specifically declined continuation, she would be continued until she completed 20 years of commissioned service, which is the maximum years allowed under the provisions of law guiding this retention for officers in the grade of CPT.  He also advised her that future PSBs would consider her for promotion as long as she remained eligible for consideration.  If she declined SELCON, law requires that she be separated from the Army Reserve not later than the first day of the seventh month after the PSB report was approved.

26.  On 9 January 2012, the applicant's career manager informed her via email that he was scrubbing her board file in preparation for the MAJ APL promotion board and that their records did not indicate she was educationally qualified for the upcoming board as a result of completing either the OAC or CCC.  He advised her that a Soldier who is non-educationally qualified for promotion has no chance of being selected for promotion.  He noted there was a course completion diploma in her file, but it cannot be read to determine for which course it indicates completion.  (A review of the certificate in question shows it was for successful completion of the Transportation Officer Basic Course).  He asked the applicant to please send proof of completion of the OAC or CCC, informed her that her APFT was expired, and provided her a copy of the current board announcement message.

27.  Her record contains a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) which shows an informal line of duty determination was conducted on 18 November 2011 to determine the status of the origin of her conditions of neck, back, and hip pain which she attested were the result of wearing combat equipment during 2 days of convoy maneuvers while serving in Kuwait on 3 May 2004.  It was determined her injuries were incurred in the line of duty and may result in a permanent partial disability.  This document was authenticated by a patient administrator on 1 June 2012.

28.  Her record contains a DA Form 2173 which shows an informal line of duty determination was conducted on 18 November 2011 to determine the status of the origin of her conditions of PTSD and Depression which manifested when she experienced an emotional episode while home on leave from deployment in Kuwait on 31 October 2004.  It was determined her injuries were incurred in the line of duty and may result in a permanent partial disability.  This document was authenticated by a patient administrator on 1 June 2012.

29.  Her record contains a memorandum rendered by the Director of Human Resources, 81st Regional Support Command, on 18 December 2012.  The purpose of this memorandum was to provide further information concerning options available to the applicant as a result of her recent consideration for promotion which had resulted in her non-selection.  Since she was eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve, she was in an excepted category.  She was advised that her removal was mandatory no later than the first day of the seventh month following the President's approval of the board.  She was further advised that transfer to the Retired Reserve does not automatically entitle her to pay, allowances or other benefits.  Completion of 20 years total service does not entitle her to retirement pay or other benefits unless such service was qualifying service for retirement pay, and she had attained the age prescribed by law.  She was afforded an opportunity to elect one of the following options:

	a.  "I request transfer to the Retired Reserve."

	b.  "I request to be discharged."

	c.  "I request transfer to the Retired Reserve as a Voluntary Separation Incentive recipient."

(Her record is void of any indication she made an election and returned the document for processing)

30.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions Branch, HRC, on 16 January 2013.  The advisory official stated the assertion that the applicant was non-selected for promotion to MAJ on the Fiscal Years (FY) 2007-2012 MAJ APL PSBs based upon her failure to complete the mandatory military school requirement set forth in Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2, was substantiated.

	a.  The applicant was SELCON by the FY2010 APL, PSB.  As such, her mandatory separation date was adjusted to her 20-year mark of commissioned service, 12 May 2015.

	b.  The advisory official deferred to the aforementioned Congressional Response, dated 15 September 2010, which indicated she was subsequently denied entrance to the required schooling due to an erroneous code.  However, he noted the code had been corrected and as such, the applicant should have been able to then attend the required course in the interim timeframe.  Likewise, she has not offered any explanation to explain why she has not met this requirement in the two plus years after the coding issue was resolved.

	c.  Even if the applicant is retroactively deemed educationally qualified by the ABCMR for SSB purposes or able to attend and subsequently graduate from the required MILED course prior to her mandatory separation date for the FY 2013 or 2014 PSBs, she would be deemed educationally qualified, but still have a greatly diminished chance of selection based upon two "Satisfactory Performance" OERs for the periods ending 25 September 2004 and 4 May 2007.

31.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and afforded an opportunity to respond.  In her response to the advisory opinion, she essentially restates her contentions that:
	a.  she would have been promoted if she had been allowed to attend the required MILED, but was unable to because of the erroneous code in the medical database;

	b.  although two of her OERs indicated "Satisfactory Performance," her rating chain recommended that she be promoted;

	c.  she has not completed the training during the last two years because she has been waiting on a medical board; a review of the "MEDPROS" database will show her most recent board has been pending for 607 days.

32.  A review of the applicant's AMHRR on 18 July 2013 revealed she still has not successfully completed either an OAC or CCC.

33.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve officers.  Table 2-2 states the MILED requirement from CPT to MAJ is completion of any officer advanced course or CPT's career course.  It also states SSBs may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned officers for promotion when Headquarters, Department of the Army discovers one or more of the following: an officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error, including officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the temporary disability list and who have since been placed on the APL (SSB required); the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary); or the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary).

34.  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 nonselection by a promotion selection board.  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.

35.  Each of the PSB announcement messages for the FY2007-2012 boards reiterated the MILED requirements stipulated in Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2 and the fact that MILED and civilian education must be completed no later than the day before the board convenes.

	a.  The MILED requirement for promotion to MAJ is completion of any OAC or CCC.  The evidence of completion is the DA Form 1059.  Officers not educationally qualified will not be selected for promotion.

	b.  The promotion board will utilize the My Board File (MBF) application which is comprised of the official photograph, officer record brief, and documents from the performance section of the AMHRR. 

	c.  Officers may review their official file through the HRC website.  In order for the MBF to be updated, the officer must first correct the items in their official file through their servicing S-1.  Officers may view their MBF by clicking on the "My Record Portal" using their "Army Knowledge Online" user name.  Failure to comply with the instructions in the Military Personnel (MILPER) Message will be viewed as lack of due diligence on the officer's part.  

	d.  Officers must provide missing documents that are in their possession or make a reasonable attempt to retrieve missing documents.  Again, failure to comply may demonstrate a lack of diligence on the officer's part.  All documents must be submitted using the correct process no later than the specified date.  The MBF will close 5 days prior to the convene date of the board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Implicit in the Army's promotion system is the universally accepted and frequently discussed principle that officers have a responsibility for their own careers.  The applicant knew or should have known that completion of the CPT's Career Course and its inclusion in her MBF has been a long-standing regulatory requirement for promotion to MAJ.  The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details, such as promotion board dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official, and unofficial publications, and in official communications.

2.  Additionally, MILPER Messages announced the convening date of the 2007-2012 MAJ APL boards with specific instructions for eligible officers to ensure the officer’s record was complete and met the requirements.  The messages warned that failure to comply with the instructions in the MILPER Messages would be viewed as lack of due diligence on the officer's part.  

3.  The applicant had nearly 3 years time in grade at the time she was given a P3 profile.  The fact that she had an erroneous code in the medical system for          3 years is duly noted.  However, this matter was resolved several years ago and the evidence of record shows the applicant still has not successfully completed either an OAC or CCC Phase 2.  As a result, she is still considered not educationally qualified.  

4.  The fact that the applicant's raters and senior raters for her OERs for the periods ending 25 September 2004 and 4 May 2007 recommended that she be promoted is noted.  However, it is also noted that they did not recommend that she be promoted ahead of her peers and the evaluated her overall performance and potential as "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" rather than "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."  The advisory official opined that even if she had been educationally qualified, these ratings would have been difficult to overcome when compared to the OERs of her peers.  

5.  As 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 nonselection by a promotion selection board.  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.

6.  That opinion appears to be valid.  Promotion to a field grade rank is more competitive than promotion to a company grade rank.  It does not appear that there would have been a reasonable chance of her being promoted to MAJ even barring the error in the erroneous coding of her medical status.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting her an SSB.

7.  Regretfully, the available evidence does not appear to qualify her for an education waiver and consideration for promotion to the rank/grade of MAJ/O-4 by an SSB under the criteria of any past FY MAJ APL selection board criteria.

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)                                         AR20120014906





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120014906



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1