BOARD DATE:	  3 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130014756 


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, correction of her military records by having her promotion packet submitted to a special selection board for consideration.  

2.  The applicant states she earned a bachelor degree in 2007.  She contends that the transcript was provided to her unit upon completion and the Standard Installation/Division Personnel System (SIDPERS) was updated.  Upon receiving her Department of the Army (DA) selection notification, she was informed that she did not meet the civilian education requirement; however, the transcript showing completion of civilian education had been in her records.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her official transcript from the University of Texas, Officer Record Brief (ORB), and her Army National Guard (ARNG) Retirement Points History Statement.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of submission of this application, the applicant was a member of the Texas ARNG serving in the rank of first lieutenant as a human resources officer.  

2.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB), Personnel Policy Division.  This office recommends denial of the applicant's request and states:

	a.  A review of the applicant's records show she obtained a baccalaureate degree in 2007.  Her ORB, dated 1 November 2012, section VII (Civilian Education) reflects the level of education completed as baccalaureate degree; however, the name of the institution and year of completion were blank.  Under section VI (Military Education) the type of degree is notated.  The Soldier and the unit/State validated the accuracy of this document on 1 November 2012.  It is the responsibility of the Soldier to review, update, and validate their individual records prior to submitting their packet before a promotion board.

	b.  Upon coordination with NGB and DA Boards Branch, a copy of the fiscal year (FY) 2013 captain (CPT) Army Promotion List board file, attached, shows no transcript was in the applicant's file.  Additionally, the last page of the file shows no activity on her board file, meaning she did not review her record before the convening date of the board.

	c.  The fact that the applicant did not complete a review of her record does not constitute a material error for promotion board.  Therefore, upon review of the evidence presented and the materials provided by the Soldier, there is no evidence of error or injustice regarding her request.

	d.  The Texas ARNG concurs with their recommendation.

3.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for her information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  No response was received.

4.  Her ORB, certified on 31 October 2012 and validated on 1 November 2012, shows in Section VI (Military Education), among other entries, the entry "biochemistry - 2007."  Section VII shows she attained a baccalaureate degree; however, the institution, year, and discipline are not shown.

5.  A review of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) in the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Soldier Management System-Interactive Web Services revealed that her official college transcript was added to her AMHRR on 19 February 2013.

6.  On 1 October 2013, she was separated from the ARNG and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement)

7.  Army Regulation 135-155 (ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), Section III (Promotion Reconsideration Boards) provides that:

	a.  Officers and warrant officers who have either failed of 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 special selection board (SSB), as appropriate.  It further provides that:

	b.  Promotion reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual's non-selection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.

	c.  The Commander, HRC, Office of Promotions (Reserve Component) 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 he/she had.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), chapter 7 (Special Selection Boards) provides that 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.

9.  According to the HRC website, the FY2013 CPT Army Reserve and ARNG promotion board convened on 29 October 2012.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her promotion packet should be submitted to an SSB board for consideration because her civilian education was not considered during the FY2013 CPT promotion board.

2.  The evidence of record indicates she earned a baccalaureate degree in 2007. However, the evidence also shows her official college transcript was not included in her board file as confirmed by the NGB, the DA Boards Branch, and the fact that the college transcript was added to her OMPF on 19 February 2013, almost four months after the board's convening date.  Therefore, it is evident the 

applicant failed to exercise reasonable diligence by failing to review her board file prior to the board's convening date as was her responsibility.

3.  Based on the foregoing, there is no evidence of error or injustice in this case.  As a result, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request for consideration by an SSB for promotion to CPT.

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)                                         AR20130014756



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130014756



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1