IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    12 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130017269 


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 removal of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Colonel (COL) Army Promotion List (APL) non-select letter from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), correction of the date of rank (DOR) and effective date of her promotion to the rank/grade of COL/O-6, correction of her mandatory retirement date (MRD) to 1 July 2017, and attendance at the Army War College in July 2014.

2.  The applicant states that most recently she was non-selected by the FY 2010 COL APL Board due to missing Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs).  

   a.  Specifically, two command-tenure OERs were missing.  They were added for the FY11 COL APL Board and she was selected for promotion.  These were the only two documents added to her AMHRR for that board.

   b.  She states Army regulations governing evaluation reports provide that senior raters or second-level supervisors are responsible for ensuring completed evaluation reports are processed at their respective agencies in a timely manner (i.e., within 90 days or less of the "Thru" date).

   c.  Her OERs were not properly maintained at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) during FYs 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the COL APLs, Senior Service College, and COL Command selection boards.
   
   d.  As a result, she was not afforded the opportunity to fairly or equally compete for positions of increasing responsibility due to missing/late OERs and other documents from her AMHRR.  This pattern of missed opportunity spanned seven years and resulted in her being a non-selected by eight separate boards.
   
   e.  She requested a special exception to policy and received an endorsement from the Commanding General, 79th Sustainment Support Command, to attend the Army War College.

   f.  She states that her exclusion was a direct result of lack of management of Reserve officers versus active component/Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program officers by the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) and HRC.

   g.  The Army regulations provide that a special selection board (SSB) will not be convened to consider or reconsider an individual for command billet or Army service school selection; however, the Commanding General, HRC, may grant an officer an extra year of eligibility for these boards.

   h.  With regard to the correction of her MRD, the Army regulation provides that if the promotion to COL was delayed as a result of limitations imposed, removal will be computed from the 5th anniversary of the officer's promotion eligibility date.  Otherwise, removal will be computed from the later of the following dates:  the effective date of promotion to COL or the date of the letter announcing the promotion.

3.  The applicant provides copies of email messages pertaining to the processing of her OERs and her request for an SSB.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer, in the rank of second lieutenant, on 8 June 1985.  She was awarded functional area specialty 90A (Logistics).

2.  On 9 July 2003, the Director, Personnel Actions and Services, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO, notified the applicant that her eligibility for retired pay had been established upon attaining age 60.

3.  She was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/pay grade O-5 on 9 January 2006.

4.  A DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief (ORB)), dated 17 June 2008, shows in section IX (Assignment History) the applicant was assigned as the Chief, Contracting, USARC, Augmentation Unit, Fort McPherson, GA, effective 8 June 2007.  A further review fails to show that she was assigned to a command position, other than as detachment commander during the 1990 to 1995 timeframe.

5.  Headquarters, USARC, Fort McPherson, GA, memorandum, dated 
7 February 2011, subject:  Notification of Non-Selection for Promotion, shows the applicant was considered by a Department of the Army (DA) Reserve Components (RC) Mandatory Selection Board (MSB), but was not among those selected for promotion by the board.  This document is filed in the service folder of her AMHRR.

6.  HRC, Fort Knox, KY, Orders B-12-108464, dated 28 December 2011, promoted the applicant to COL effective and with a DOR of 17 December 2011.

7.  A review of the applicant's AMHRR revealed the following DA Forms 67-9 (OERs) that are filed in the performance folder of her AMHRR:

	a.  OER for the period 30 June 2006 through 29 June 2007 that shows in:

* Part II (Authentication):

* block a (Rater), Date:  5 September 2008
* block c (Senior Rater), Date:  2 September 2008
* block e (Signature of Rated Officer), Date:  6 September 2008 

* Part III (Duty Description), block a (Principal Duty Title):  Division Integration Chief, 311th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary)
* Part VII (Senior Rater), block b (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade - Overprinted by DA):  "Center of Mass" (8 September 2008)

   b.  OER for the period 30 June 2007 through 29 February 2008 that shows in:

* Part II:

* block a, Date:  5 November 2008
* block c, Date:  5 November 2008
* block e, Date:  21 May 2009 

* Part III, block a:  Director, 63rd Regional Readiness Command Contracting Office
* Part VII, block b:  "Above Center of Mass" (13 August 2009)
   c.  OER for the period 1 March 2008 through 28 February 2009 that shows in:

* Part II:

* block a, Date:  10 March 2010
* block c, Date:  17 March 2010
* block e, Date:  30 March 2010

* Part III, block a:  Director, 63rd Regional Readiness Command Contracting Office
* Part VII, block b:  "Center of Mass" (2 April 2010)

   d.  OER for the period 1 March 2009 through 3 December 2009 that shows in:

* Part II:

* block a, Date:  1 June 2011
* block c, Date:  20 June 2011
* block e, Date:  21 June 2011

* Part III, block a:  Commander, 418th Quartermaster Battalion
* Part VII, block b:  "Above Center of Mass" (23 June 2011)

   e.  OER for the period 4 December 2009 through 3 December 2010 that shows in:

* Part II:

* block a, Date:  13 June 2011
* block c, Date:  15 June 2011
* block e, Date:  15 June 2011

* Part III, block a:  Commander, 418th Quartermaster Battalion
* Part VII, block b:  "Center of Mass" (16 June 2011)

8.  In support of her request the applicant provides the following documents:

   a.  Headquarters, 63rd Regional Support Command, Mountain View, CA, memorandum, undated, that notified the applicant of her selection for promotion by a DA RC MSB.

   b.  A memorandum under the signature of the applicant, dated 10 June 2013, in which she requested reconsideration of promotion under the same criteria and instructions of the FY 2010 COL APL.

   c.  Email messages, spanning the period 11 August to 3 September 2008, that show the applicant's rating officials were contacted concerning a late OER for the period 30 June 2006 through 29 June 2007 and that the OER was completed in September 2008.

   d.  Email messages, spanning the period 5 November 2009 to 23 March 2010, that show the applicant's rating officials were contacted concerning a late OER for the period 1 March 2008 through 28 February 2009 and that the OER was completed in late March 2010.

   e.  A memorandum, from the applicant to the President, COL Promotion Selection Board, dated 17 May 2010, that shows the applicant advised the board that an OER for the period 1 March 2009 through “29 February 2010” was missing from her records due, in part, to her rater being deployed overseas and her senior rater's recent promotion to major general.  

   f.  An email from the applicant to HRC, dated 2 June 2010, that shows she forwarded documents for consideration by the FY 2010 COL APL Board.

   g.  Email messages, spanning the period 18 April to 21 June 2011, that show the applicant's OER for the period 1 March 2009 through 3 December 2009 was not on file, her rating officials were contacted, and the OER was completed in late June 2011.

   h.  An email from COL John B. Y----, to the DA and USARC Boards, dated 
9 July 2013, in which he explains that the applicant's OER for the period 2009 - 2010 was late because the rater (COL Robert A. O----) was deployed overseas.  (The applicant forwarded this email to HRC for inclusion in her request for an SSB on 9 July 2013.)

   i.  HRC, Fort Knox, KY, memorandum, dated 9 August 2013, subject:  SSB Validation Panel Results - FY 2010 COL APL, that shows the applicant was informed that an Evaluations, Selections, and Promotions Division review panel considered her request for reconsideration and determined that it does not warrant SSB consideration.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the AMHRR.  
   a.  Documents filed in the AMHRR are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods.  Once an official document has been properly filed in the AMHRR, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.
   
   b.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the AMHRR in one of six sections:  performance, service, restricted, medical, other, or State/ Territory.  

   c.  Table B-1 (Authorized Documents) provides guidance for filing the
Letter of Notification to Officers Considered for Promotion But Not Selected.  It shows the letter will be filed in the service folder of the AMHRR.

   d.  Paragraph 4-9 provides rules for administering officer pre-board processing.  It shows that officers in the zone of consideration will review and update their ORB; all current, available admissible personal information will be submitted to the AMHRR; and these officers are responsible for maintaining and submitting current information to HRC.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), chapter 7 (SSB), paragraph 7-3 (Cases Not Considered), provides, in part, that an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when the following occurs:  an administrative error was immaterial, or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or AMHRR.  It is the officer's responsibility to review his or her ORB and AMHRR before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them.

11.  Army Regulation 623-3 and DA Pamphlet 623-2 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribe the policy and tasks for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System, including officer, noncommissioned officer, and academic evaluation reports focused on the assessment of performance and potential.

   a.  Paragraph 2-15 of the Army regulation provides that the senior rater will ensure the evaluation reports that the senior rater and subordinates write are complete, provide a realistic evaluation of the rated Soldier, and are submitted to HQDA in a timely manner.

   b.  Paragraph 5-1 of the DA pamphlet provides that evaluation reports prepared using the Wizard application associated with the electronic form within the "My Forms" Portal of Amy Knowledge Online (on the current Army Publishing Directorate approved versions of DA Form 67–9) will be submitted to HQDA to arrive no later than 90 days after the "Thru" date of the report.

12.  Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 10-048, Subject:  FY 2010 COL APL Promotion Selection Board, issued on 17 February 2010, shows the board was to convene on or about 8 June 2010 and that the applicant was in the promotion zone.  It also shows:

   a.  officers having questions about OERs missing from the AMHRR covering service from previous years, particularly if it was with other components, or on previously rejected or errored reports should contact an evaluations point of contact for resolution;

   b.  the officer may write a memorandum to the President of the Board if there is information which would be deemed important in the consideration of the officer's record.  (For example, if the officer is currently deployed and does not have a recent OER.); and
   
   c.  failure to comply with these instructions will be viewed as a "Lack of Due Diligence" on the officer's part.

13.  Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers), chapter 7 (Removal from active status), paragraph 7-2 (Length of service), provides that colonels will be removed on the earlier of the following dates, except as shown in b, below.

   a.  The actual removal date will be 30 days after they complete 30 years of commissioned service if under age 25 at initial appointment, or their 55th birthday if age 25 or older at initial appointment.

   b.  The 5th anniversary of appointment to COL if that date is later than the date shown above.  If promotion to COL was delayed as a result of limitations imposed, removal will be computed from the officer's promotion eligibility date.  Otherwise, removal will be computed from the later of the following dates:

    	(1)  the effective date of promotion to COL; or

    	(2)  the date of the letter announcing the promotion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the FY 2010 COL APL non-select letter should be removed from her AMHRR, the DOR and effective date of her promotion to COL (O-6) should be corrected to a date commensurate with officers selected by the FY 2010 COL APL Board, correction of her MRD to 1 July 2017, and attendance at the Army War College in July 2014.

2.  The evidence of record shows the FY 2010 COL APL non-select letter is properly filed in the service folder of the applicant's AMHRR.  The board convened on or about 8 June 2010.

3.  The evidence of record shows:

	a.  for the OER with a "Thru" date of 29 June 2007:

    	(1)  rating officials were contacted concerning the OER being late in August 2008;

    	(2)  the OER was completed by the rating officials on 5 September 2008, signed by the applicant on 6 September 2008, and processed by HRC on
8 September 2008;

    	(3)  there was a delay in the processing of this OER by the rating officials of more than 14 months; and

    	(4)  the OER was filed in her AMHRR for the FY 2010 COL APL Board.

   b.  for OER with a "Thru" date of 29 February 2008:

   	(1)  no evidence that the rating officials were contacted concerning the OER being late;

    	(2)  the OER was completed by the rating officials on 5 November 2008, signed by the applicant on 21 May 2009, and processed by HRC on 13 August 2009;

    	(3)  there was a delay in the processing of this OER by the rating officials of more than 8 months, an additional delay of more than 6 months by the applicant, and almost 3 months processing time by HRC; and

    	(4)  the OER was filed in her AMHRR for the FY 2010 COL APL Board.

   c.  for OER with a "Thru" date of 28 February 2009:

    	(1)  rating officials were contacted concerning the OER being late in November 2009;

    	(2)  the OER was completed by the rating officials on 17 March 2010, signed by the applicant on 30 March 2010, and processed by HRC on 2 April 2010;

    	(3)  there was a delay in the processing of this OER by the rating officials of almost 13 months; and

    	(4)  the OER was filed in her AMHRR for the FY 2010 COL APL Board.

   d.  for OER with a "Thru" date of 3 December 2009:

    	(1)  rating officials were contacted concerning the OER being late in April 2011;

    	(2)  the OER was completed by the rating officials on 20 June 2011, signed by the applicant on 21 June 2011, and processed by HRC on 23 June 2011;

    	(3)  there was a delay in the processing of this OER by the rating officials of more than 18 months.

    	(4)  the OER was not filed in her AMHRR for the FY 2010 COL APL Board.

   e.  for OER with a "Thru" date of 3 December 2010:

    	(1)  no evidence that the rating officials were contacted concerning the OER being late;

    	(2)  the OER was completed by the rating officials on 15 June 2011, signed by the applicant on 15 June 2011, and processed by HRC on 16 June 2011;

    	(3)  there was a delay in the processing of this OER by the rating officials of more than 6 months; and

    	(4)  based on the "Thru" date, the OER would not have been filed in her AMHRR for the FY 2010 COL APL Board.

4.  Thus, the evidence of record supports the applicant's contention that rating officials did not process her OERs in a timely manner.  However, the evidence of record does not support her contention that HRC officials did not process the OERS in a timely manner upon receipt at HRC.
5.  The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a letter to the President of the FY 2010 COL APL Board advising that her AMHRR was missing an OER covering the period 1 March 2009 through "29 February 2010" due, in part, to deployment of the rater overseas and the recent promotion of the senior rater.  In fact, the "Thru" date for the OER was 3 December 2009.  There is also no evidence of record that shows the applicant provided information to the board advising of her assignment to a battalion command position. 

6.  There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant contacted an official of the evaluations branch at HRC concerning any questions about OERs missing from the AMHRR covering service from previous years; more specifically, prior to the convene date of the FY 2010 COL APL Board regarding her initial OER covering her duty as a battalion commander.

7.  Records show the applicant was selected for promotion by the FY 2011 COL APL Board and promoted to COL on 17 December 2011.

8.  On 9 August 2013, the HRC, Officer Promotions, Special Actions Branch, denied the applicant's request for promotion consideration by an SSB because it was determined that her request did not equate to or constitute a matter of material error for SSB consideration.

9.  The governing Army regulation provides that an officer will not be 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 evidence of record fails to show the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in this case with respect to providing information to the President of the FY 2010 APL Board.

10.  Thus, the applicant offers insufficient evidence to support her contention that her DOR and effective date of her promotion to COL (O-6) should be corrected to a date commensurate with officers selected by the FY 2010 COL APL Board and/ or that her MRD should be corrected.

11.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's request.







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)                                         AR20130017269



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130017269



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1