`
		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013215 


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 immediate promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O5 with back pay and allowances from 2011.  If the direct promotion is not possible, as an alternative she requests consideration for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, 2012, and 2013 selection criteria.

2.  She states after being non-selected for promotion by the FY12 LTC Board she obtained her board file from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). The file contained a memorandum for record (MFR) relating to a successful Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) appeal of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) as a first lieutenant (1LT).  She maintains the MFR was a serious material administrative error in the FY12 board that appears despite her branch manager's attempt to correct and certify her file.  She states that having the documents related to her service as a lieutenant does not reflect well on her and causes her to appear negligent.

   a.  She states that in September 2012 she had the HRC Inspector General (IG) investigate how these documents could have gotten into a file that had been prepared and certified by both her and her branch manager.  The SSB told the IG that they thought the documents were not visible to the board.  She offers she administratively appealed her non-selection to LTC through the SSB process, but she was denied.  



	b.  She states she requested her 2011 board file and found the same MFR had been repopulated.  She then requested her 2013 board file and although the ABCMR MFR had been removed an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) that she received as a second lieutenant (2LT) appeared in her board file.  She offers that the FY13 board file was evidence of a masked document being repopulated into an actual board file.  She opines that due to the serious errors in the zone and above the zone for selection to LTC, Army Maneuver, Fires, and Effects, Operation Support (OS) and Force Sustainment, Department of the Army Promotion Selection Boards for FY11, FY12, and FY13, she should be immediately promoted to LTC.  However, if direct promotion is not an option, she requests consideration by an SSB for those boards outside of her branch.

3.  She provides:

* A self-authored statement
* An IG letter, dated 2 July 2013
* Numerous email
* Memorandum, Subject:  SSB Validation Panel Results FY12, LTC Army OS, dated 10 December 2012
* Promotion board files for FY11, FY12, and FY13
* Officer Record Brief (ORB)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve 2LT on 18 September 1994 and she entered active duty on 18 October 1994.  She was promoted to major (MAJ), in Functional Area (FA) 49 (Operations Research Analysis) effective 1 September 2005.

2.  A DA Form 1059 (Service School AER) for the period 21 October 1994 through 11 January 1995 shows the applicant successfully completed the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Basic Course.  She received "Superior" ratings in written communication and leadership skills and "Satisfactory" ratings in oral communication and contribution to group work.  Her student research ability was not evaluated.  Her course average was listed as 91.29 percent with positive comments concerning her performance.

3.  An MFR, dated 16 May 1997, shows the applicant received an OER/AER for the period 17 May 1995 to 16 May 1997 as a 1LT.  The document indicated that the OER/AER was altered as directed by the ABCMR.



4.  Email shows the following:

   a.  On 8 December 2010, the applicant sent an email to her assignment manager stating she checked her official military personnel file (currently known as Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR)) and she found that half a transcript and a diploma were missing.  She also stated she had those documents re-uploaded.  The assignment manager stated he had updated her ORB and to give it until the first of January to see if the transactions were processed.

   b.  On 8 December 2011, the assignment manger sent an e-mail to all FA49 majors being considered above the zone by the FY 2012 LTC Promotion Board with a date of rank of 31 March 2006 and earlier.  In his email, he stated the board would convene on 22 February 2012.  He attached the military personnel message that provided detailed information on the board selection process.  The message encouraged everyone to do some level of certification before the board convened.  Otherwise, it would appear that they were sending a message to the board that they did not care enough to look at their file.
   
   c.  On 10 January 2012, the assignment manager notified the applicant that he had reviewed her file for the upcoming LTC board and everything looked in order.  He stated that if she required any assistance in updating her ORB to let him know.
   
   d.  On 18 and 23 January 2012, the applicant notified her assignment manager of a problem with her assignment date and OER through date on her ORB.  She also informed him of the memorandum relating to her ABCMR appeal.  She stated that it would be better if the memorandum was not there.
   
   e.  On 30 August 2012, HRC acknowledged receipt of the applicant's request for an SSB.  The HRC representative told the applicant to review her AMHRR and ensure it was complete and updated. 

5.  In a memorandum, Subject:  SSB Validation Panel Results FY 2012, LTC Army OS, dated 10 December 2012, Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, HRC, responded to the applicant's request for an SSB.  The agency stated an Evaluations, Selections, and Promotion Division (ESPD) review panel carefully considered her request for reconsideration and determined that it did not warrant approval.  The panel concluded that the MFR, dated 16 May 1997, was available for view by the board as it should have been.  The MFR was a standalone document and not subject to masking such as AERs and OERs.  The agency concluded that they were confident that the applicant received fair and equitable consideration by the panel based on its review.

6.  On 2 July 2013, the IG rendered a final response to the applicant's inquiry concerning improper placement of an erroneous document into her board file.  The IG stated an inquiry into her issue revealed that HRC had a systemic failure when sending individuals copies of board files.  Documents that were identified as not to be presented to the board were included in requested board files sent to individuals as part of the post-board process.  The agency representative stated he concurred with the applicant that she should have her records reviewed by another board since there was no way to know what the board saw.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) states, in pertinent part, 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 AMHRR.
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. 

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) states that document masking is the act of moving specifically identified documentation from the "Performance" folder to the "Restricted" folder within the AMHRR.  It states that OERs for 2LT, 1LT, or warrant officer one will be moved to the "Restricted" folder upon promotion and/or selection to captain and chief warrant officer three.

9.  Appendix B of the same regulation is the authoritative source for documents authorized for filing in the AMHRR.  It provides that a DA Form 1059 should be filed in the "Performance" folder of the AMHRR. 

10.  Table 2-1 of Army Regulation 600-8-104, in effect at the time, states that Headquarters Department of the Army memorandum for record explaining correction to evaluation reports will be filed in the performance section of the AMHRR. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she is entitled to promotion to LTC because an MFR from the ABCMR concerning a successful OER appeal as a 1LT was seen by the FY11 and FY12 LTC Promotion Boards.  Additionally, a DA Form 1059 as a 2LT was seen by the FY13 LTC Promotion Board.  As an alternative to the immediate promotion to LTC, she requests an SSB for FY11, FY12, and FY13.


2.  The HRC ESPD panel considered her request for reconsideration and concluded the MFR, dated 16 May 1997, should have been available for view by the board since it was a standalone document and not subject to masking such as AERs and OERs.  

3.  In a final response to the applicant's inquiry concerning improper placement of an erroneous document into her board file, the IG said an inquiry into her issue revealed that HRC had a systemic failure when sending individuals copies of board files.  Documents that were identified as not to be presented to the board were included in requested board files sent to individuals as part of the post board process.  The agency representative opined that she should have her records reviewed by another board since there was no way to know what the board saw.

4.  In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-104, as cited above, officers will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when an administrative error was immaterial.  Notwithstanding the IG's opinion, there is no evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence to show the MFR was significant enough to hinder her promotion to LTC on two separate boards.  Additionally, there is no evidence that the AER rendered as a 2LT in which she successfully completed the AMEDD Officer Basic Course with an average of 91.29 percent contributed to her non-selection to LTC on the FY13 LTC Promotion Selection List.

5.  The evidence shows the above DA Form 1059 and the MFR were rendered while the applicant was serving in the rank of 2LT and 1LT.  Based on the date of these documents and the information provided by HRC concerning the MFR being a standalone document and not subject to masking, it is safe to assume that these documents were also in her board file at the time of promotion to captain and major.  Therefore, it does not appear that these documents have adversely affected her promotion potential.  Therefore, she is not entitled to promotion to LTC with back pay and allowances from FY11 or an SSB for FY11, FY12, or FY13.

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)                                         AR20130013215



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013215



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1