Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019953
Original file (20130019953 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130019953 


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 that her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of captain (CPT) be changed to 15 March 2012.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there was an administrative error regarding the uploading of her transcripts to iPERMS on 9 May 2008.  She submitted an explanation with transcripts and was granted a second look for promotion to the rank of CPT and now believes she did not get a second look for promotion based on the absence of evidence to show she met the education requirements that she provided.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of emails, her notification of non-selection for promotion, special selection board (SSB) notification, and SSB results.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Quartermaster Corps second lieutenant on 23 April 2009.

2.  On 21 September 2009, while attending the basic officer leadership course at Fort Lee, Virginia, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for driving under the influence of alcohol.  

3.  The applicant’s company commander recommended that the GOMOR be filed in her OMPF because it was her second DUI within the last 10 years (first DUI in 2001) and she needed to be forced to enroll in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  The brigade commander recommended filing it in the restricted section of her official records.  The imposing authority directed the GOMOR be filed in her official records.  Accordingly, it was filed in the performance section of her official records.

4.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 22 October 2010.

5.  On 5 March 2012, a memorandum was dispatched from the 99th Regional Support Command (RSC) notifying the applicant that she had been non-selected to the rank of CPT during her first consideration and that her records did not reflect that she had completed the required civilian and/or military education requirements before the date the board convened.

6.  On 17 April 2012, the applicant was notified by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) that she would be reconsidered for promotion by an SSB.

7.  On 24 January 2013, the applicant was notified by HRC that she was considered by an SSB and was again not selected for promotion to CPT.  She was informed that the reason for her nonselection was not known.

8.  However, the applicant was selected for promotion to CPT by the mandatory Fiscal Year 2013 Reserve Component, Captain, Army Promotion Selection Board and was promoted to the rank of CPT on 1 July 2013.

9.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from HRC who opined that a review of the applicant’s DOR and promotion board history was conducted and a determination was made that her current DOR to CPT is correct.

10.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant and she responded to the effect that she did not agree with the opinion due to the fact that she received notification before the selection board convened verifying that she met education requirements before the board convened and yet she was notified that she was not selected because she did not meet education requirements.   

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that her DOR should be changed to 15 March 2012 has been noted and found to lack merit. 

2.  The applicant contends that the reason for her disagreement with the advisory opinion is based on the notification she received which informed her that she was not promoted because she did not meet education requirements.

3.  Reasons for nonselection by a promotion board are not divulged unless the reason was failure to meet civilian or military education requirements.  Her first notification of nonselection had informed her she had not completed the required civilian and/or military education.  It appears that she had, and that was the reason she was considered by an SSB.  However, the letter of non-selection after her SSB consideration did not say that she was not selected because she did not meet education requirements.  It simply stated that she was not among those selected and the reason for her nonselection was not known.

4.  It is a well known fact that promotion boards are not allowed to divulge the reasons for selection and non-selection of those considered and the applicant was no exception.

5.  While there may have been an administrative error such as the absence of education documents that caused her not to be selected the first time, that issued was resolved when she received consideration by an SSB.  By virtue of the fact that she was still not selected is indicative that the lack of her education documents was not the sole reason for her non-selection.

6.  Since the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records of those considered, it must be presumed that she was properly considered by the selection boards that reviewed her records and that there is no error or injustice associated with her first non-selection for promotion .

7.  Accordingly, it appear that her DOR for promotion to CPT is correct and that there is no basis to adjust her DOR as requested. 

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)                                         AR20130019953





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130019953



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014753

    Original file (20130014753.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states she was not selected for promotion to CPT with no reason given. She states that an error occurred in her board file whereby her BSN was not filed prior to the convene date of the promotion selection board. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) states promotion consideration or reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error which existed in the record at...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007618

    Original file (20120007618.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was a first lieutenant (1LT) in the Alaska Army National Guard (AKARNG). The Board obtained an advisory opinion from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and mailed her a copy at her Alaska address. It is an unavoidable fact that some officers considered for promotion will not be selected for promotion.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018742

    Original file (20130018742 .txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2013 | 20130018742

    Original file (20130018742.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2010 | 20100024545

    Original file (20100024545.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has provided no evidence to support her contention that she was nonselected for promotion to CPT because she did not meet the educational requirements for promotion. While it is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected by the boards in question, there does not appear to be any material error in her record at the time that would justify her receiving promotion reconsideration by those boards that did not select her at the time or to grant her request. Therefore, in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015946

    Original file (20130015946.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    a. Paragraph 2-2 states to qualify for selection, commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) must complete the military educational requirements in table 2-2 not later than the day before the selection board convene date. The Fiscal Year 2013 promotion board convened on 27 November 2012 and considered her non-educationally qualified and she was again not selected for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011053

    Original file (20110011053.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, she was erroneously not selected for promotion by the Department of the Army (DA) Promotion Board (twice) and she believes it was due to an Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) error in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). She was considered a second time for promotion by the FY11 1LT-CPT DA board on 2 November 2010 and was non-selected for promotion and no reason was given. The evidence of record shows she was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020760

    Original file (20090020760.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of her records as follows: * Award of 8 years and 11 months of constructive service credit (CSC) in order to establish her promotion eligibility to major (MAJ) as March 2001 * Adjustment of her date of rank (DOR) as a MAJ to an appropriate date to put her in the zone for promotion to lieutenant colonel * Correction of her education error * Informing the U.S. Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000849

    Original file (20140000849.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states: * the applicant did not receive an officer evaluation report (OER) from 30 July 2010 until the filing of this application * the non-filing of an OER by the applicant's chain of command during the promotion board time frame caused him to be non-selected for promotion to CPT * the applicant's non-selection for promotion to CPT was in error and unjust given his service history * around 1 January 2011, he returned from overseas and began contacting his unit requesting to return...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018151

    Original file (20140018151.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She is requesting that her military record from April 2013, now in a corrected state with her PULHES shown as 111111, be compared to her fellow 2013 officers who were selected for promotion during that board. The applicant provided: a. email from LTC H, in reference to her DEROS, that shows she was attempting to change her ORB PULHES entries prior to the FY13 promotion board; b. email from Doctor T, pertaining to her PULHES entries, indicating her PULHES entries were corrected on 24 June...