IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 27 March 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018742
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, that her discharge be voided and she be afforded a Special Selection Board review.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that she was not properly informed of the procedures and requirements for promotion and that she had not been advised of her first nonselection for promotion until after the second promotion board had convened.
3. The applicant provides:
* 16 January 2013 nonselection notification
* 24 April 2013 nonselection letter
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record)
* two DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report)
* discharge orders
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 17 December 2010, the applicant was commissioned a first lieutenant (1LT) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Army Nurse Corps, with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 17 December 2008. She was assigned to a unit in Saint Peters, Missouri.
2. Her records in the Integrated Electronic Personnel Records Management System (iPERMS) contain OERs for only two periods.
a. There is no OER or Academic Evaluation Record (AER) for the period between 17 December 2010 and 16 October 2011.
b. The OER for the period 17 October 2011 through 16 October 2012 was completed on 30 July 2013. It shows her rater marked her in the top block (Outstanding Performance, Must Promote) and her senior rater marked her in the next-to-top block (Fully Qualified) with the note "I am serving as senior rater for the review function only, since no senior rater is available who is eligible to evaluate." She is shown as center of mass and she was the only officer rated.
c. The OER for the period 17 October 2012 through 17 August 2013 was completed on 4 September 2013. It shows her rater marked her in the top block (Outstanding Performance, Must Promote) and her senior rater marked her in the top block (Best Qualified). She is shown as center of mass and she was the only one of two officers rated.
3. Her Department of the Army photograph was added to her records in iPERMS on 4 February 2013.
4. The applicant's file was reviewed by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Reserve Component (RC), Captain (CPT), Army Medical Department, Promotion Selection Board. This board was convened on 9 January 2012 with the results being released on 16 October 2012.
5. On 16 January 2013, the applicant was notified she had been nonselected for promotion to CPT by the FY 2012 RC CPT Promotion Board.
6. The applicant's file was reviewed by the FY 2013 RC CPT Promotion Board. This board convened on 27 November 2012 with the results being released on 28 March 2013.
7. On 24 April 2013, the applicant was notified she had been nonselected for promotion to CPT. With this being a second nonselect she was notified that she would be discharged on the 1st day of the 7th month following the date of Presidential approval of the board results.
8. The applicant was honorably discharged effective 1 October 2013 as a twice non-select for promotion to captain.
9. In the preparation of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Chief, Officer Promotion Management. The advisory official recommended partial relief and stated:
a. The reason(s) for her nonselection is unknown because of the statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, USC, section 14104 (Nondisclosure of Reserve Selection Board Proceedings), that prevents disclosure of these proceedings to anyone outside the promotion board in question. The decision to recommend an officer for promotion is based upon the criteria established by the Secretary of the Army and the collective judgment of the respective board members as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered.
b. Her contention that she was not properly educated as to the proper requirements for promotion consideration was dismissed as every officer being considered for promotion is sent the zone message for their boards which details all the associated promotion requirements via their Army Knowledge Online (AKO) account.
c. Consideration for insight into her chain of command's role in the process of educating her on the requirements for promotion and her apparent untimely notification of her first nonselection was deferred for her commands input. (No input from her command is of record.)
d. The review did reveal that the applicant may have grounds for an SSB for the FY 2013 board based on material error due to her unit's failure to process her OER in a timely manner before the 16 November 2012 suspense date.
10. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion. The record does not contain an indication she responded to the advisory.
11. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14504 states a 1LT on the selection list who has failed to be selected for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall be separated in accordance with section 14513 of this title not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the President approves the report of the board which considered the officer for the second time
12. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) states promotion consideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the record at the time of consideration. The regulation further specifies that the Chief, DA Promotions, is the approval authority for all current criteria requests for exception to non-statutory promotion requirements and that requests must contain complete justification and be received prior to the board convening date.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was commissioned on 17 December 2010 with her record first going before the FY 2012 CPT's promotion selection board that convened on 9 January 2012.
2. Her command appears to have failed to provide her with any evaluation for her first nine months of service. This omission means that at the time of the FY 2012 board she had no evaluation for the board to consider.
3. While the specific reason for her nonselection is unknown, the absence of an OER at the time of review would have been a major negative factor and could account for her nonselection.
4. Further, the applicant was not notified of her first nonselection until 16 January 2013. The FY 2013 selection board convened on 27 November 2012. Again, at the time of this review the applicant still did not have any OER's of record.
5. While an officer must take responsibility for the contents of their records and ensure they are complete at the time of any promotion consideration, the applicant's command appears to have failed her by failing to process her 2011 - 2012 OER in a timely manner.
6. The applicant could not have corrected any errors or omissions in her records if she was not advised of her nonselection until after it was too late to make any corrections or process the missing documents.
7. Based on the above facts and findings, a finding of material error is warranted and it would be equitable to correct her records by forwarding her records to an SSB for consideration for promotion to CPT under the applicable criteria, as recommended below.
BOARD VOTE:
____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:
a. Submitting her records to an SSB for consideration for promotion to CPT under the applicable criteria for FY 2012 and FY 2013.
b. If selected for promotion by the SSB, further correct her records by voiding her discharge, showing she met all the eligibility criteria for promotion selection effective the approved date of the promotion selection board, promoting
her in due course in accordance with Army Regulation 135-155 to CPT with the appropriate date of rank, and paying to her any associated back pay and allowances.
c. If not selected for promotion, notifying her accordingly.
_______ _ __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) AR20130018742
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130018742
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018742
The applicant states, in effect, that she was not properly informed of the procedures and requirements for promotion and that she had not been advised of her first nonselection for promotion until after the second promotion board had convened. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) states promotion consideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the record at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064935C070421
APPLICANT STATES : There is no way to compete for COL due to no fault of his own. OER Ending Period Senior Rater Block Rating (* indicates his rating) The Board concluded that it would be unjust to involuntarily separate her again and voided her previous nonselections to MAJ and showed that she was selected for promotion to major by the SSB which considered her for promotion to MAJ under the first year of her eligibility.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006954
She stated that she also had two out of six years of OERs that rated her best qualified for promotion. The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to CPT and extension in the USAR to complete 20 years of service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was passed over for promotion to CPT by the FY 2011, 2012, and 2013, RC, CPT, AMEDD Promotion Selection Boards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000875
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 29 May 2009 through 28 May 2010 was filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) prior to 8 January 2013, the date the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Army Promotion List (APL), Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Board Selection Board convened. On 13 November 2013, his request for an SSB was denied based on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004043
The applicant requests his DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 1 May 2011 through 27 December 2011 be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant states: * the contested OER was not written in accordance with the prescribed rating scheme * the rating scheme stated that he, a company commander, would be rated by the battalion commander and senior rated by the Division Deputy Commanding General (Maneuver) * the OER was written after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017269
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. g. The Army regulations provide that a special selection board (SSB) will not be convened to consider...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091048C070212
Counsel states that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) corrected the applicant's Officer Evaluation Report (OER); however, the Officer Special Review Board (ORSB) refused to submit his records before a SSB. In a 10 October 2002 letter to this Board, the applicant's former senior rater, Col Sh, stated that he had discussed the writing of the OER with his peers at Fort Drum and the Transportation Branch at PERSCOM, and that it was his intent to provide an OER that would support his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018878.
The applicant requests reconsideration for promotion to major (MAJ)/O-4, Judge Advocate General's Corp (JAGC) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for a missing DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the rating period 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER). The applicant provided a memorandum from his senior rater to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 10 August 2012, requesting that an SSB for reconsideration of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020641
The applicant states: a. However, this one incident on her record forced her to retire and she was placed on the Retired List in the rank of 1LT/O2E. During that time she was a company commander and CSM G was the Battalion CSM.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015393
The applicant states: a. He was non-selected for promotion by the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) CPT Promotion Selection Board that convened in April 2014. The applicant contends his records should go before an SSB for promotion consideration to CPT because an OER he received for the rating period 2 August 2013 through 27 March 2014 was not available for the board to review and he believes he would have been selected for promotion had the OER been in his board file.