BOARD DATE:	  21 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002682 


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, reconsideration for promotion to the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3.

2.  The applicant states it is an injustice that her promotion board profile was not looked at which resulted in her being passed over for promotion to CPT.  She was informed her profile was not looked at due to non-validation when in fact she did view her profile.  She is unaware of where the disconnection happened and she would like to be reconsidered for promotion to CPT.  She further states her photo, academic report, degree, and award were all placed in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) within the correct timeframe.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report)
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Report)
* Basic Officer Leader Course Certificate
* Army Medical Department Regiment Certificate
* Bachelor of Science in Nursing
* DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard) 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Commissioned Officer of the Army on 12 July 2009, Army Nurse Corps.
2.  On 13 October 2010, she was promoted to the rank/grade of first lieutenant/O-2.

3.  Orders 13-313-00001, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, NC, dated 9 November 2013, discharged the applicant effective 23 January 2014, based on the officer being twice non-selected for promotion to the next higher rank/grade, CPT/O-3.  

4.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), which states the applicant was considered as fully eligible for promotion under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 and 2013, CPT Army Medical Department (AMEDD) criteria but not selected.  The opinion also states:

   a.  They verified the applicant did not view or certify her FY 2012 My Board File (MBF) or certify her FY 2013 MBF.  The applicant along with all board candidates are afforded an opportunity to view and address any issues or concerns relating to their board file, not only to the board president and its members via correspondence, it may also be addressed through the MBF.

   b.  The MBF allows board candidates an additional means to address deficiencies found in their records before the convene date of the board.  It lists three selection options during review:  (1)  I have not viewed the documents, (automatic default to NO ACTIVITY without selecting an option).  (2)  I certify that the information in "MBF" is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.  (3)  I have reviewed the information in "MBF" and I will take action and submit the following corrections/changes to my file.  Failure to complete certification does not constitute material unfairness or a material error.

   c.  The applicant's assumption that she was not considered for promotion is incorrect, and she has not presented a showing or proof of "due diligence" within the guidelines of Department of Defense Instruction 1320.11 and Army Regulation 135-55 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officer Other Than General Officers), paragraph 3-19f (2) for a Special Selection Board (SSB).  Any additional comments, remarks or statements of her non-selection would be purely speculative due to the statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 14104.  This provision prevents disclosure of board proceedings to anyone who was not a member of the presiding board.

5.  On 15 April 2014, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  She responded on 20 April 2014, stating:
   a.  Despite the comments from HRC, she requests to be reinstated to the Army Reserve in the rank/grade of CPT/O-3.  She was a direct commission Soldier, and during 2009 through 2011 she was in a school status.  After graduating, she was instructed that she was allowed to drill with an Army National Guard (ARNG) unit and she was faithful in doing so.

   b.  During this time she was considered for her promotion to CPT with no guidance from anyone.  One month after receiving the message for the 2012 board she was assigned to drill with the 288th Combat Support Hospital in San Antonio, TX.  She went to the Basic Officer Leader Course and she received another letter in September or October for the 2013 promotion board.

   c.  She followed the letter and submitted information as instructed in the letter with very little guidance.  Her records show no counseling statements instructing her on what she needed to do to be promoted to CPT.  She never failed an APFT, she had her photo taken, and her DA Form 1059 and award placed in iPERMS.  

   d.  She was so committed to the Army that she is currently in a master degree program for psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner.  She chose this field knowing it is on the critical shortage list for Army personnel.  She hopes to serve in that capacity upon graduation, but instead she received discharge orders.  She remains physically and mentally fit to serve and notes her final evaluation shows her outstanding performance and that she was best qualified and a "must promote."

6.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policy and procedures used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the ARNG and commissioned and warrant officers of the USAR.  

     a.  Paragraph 3-19f(2) states the Commander, HRC, Office of Promotions 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 official personnel file; or when the officer could have taken timely corrective action such as notifying the Office of Promotions of the error and provided any relevant documentation that he or she had. 

   b.  A material error is defined as one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body) may have caused an individual’s non-selection by a promotion selection board.  Had such errors been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.
7.  Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 12-283, dated 14 September 2012, announced the policy, criteria, and zones of consideration for the FY 2013 CPT AMEDD, Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) and Army Reserve Non-AGR, and Army National Guard of the United States Competitive Categories Promotion Selection Board.  This MILPER message stated, in part:

	a.  Mandatory Department of the Army promotion selection boards would convene on or about 27 November 2012 to consider Reserve of the Army AMEDD 1LT's for promotion to CPT.

	b.  Officers with questions about policy or procedural matters were directed to contact a point of contact at HRC.  The message warned that failure to comply with the instructions could be viewed as the lack of due diligence on the officer's part.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Officers are largely responsible for their own careers.  An officer exercising due diligence knows when he or she is eligible for promotion consideration and is alert for when that promotion board will be held.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was passed over for promotion to CPT by the FY 2012 and 2013, CPT, AMEDD Promotion Selection Boards.  The reasons for her non-selection were unknown because board deliberations are not a matter of record.  

3.  The applicant responded to the advisory opinion explaining, in effect, that she had little to no guidance from anyone as to what needed to be submitted and that she received no counseling on what she needed to do to get promoted to CPT.

4.  MILPER Message 12-283 announced the convening date of the 2013 CPT AMEDD board with specific instructions for eligible officers to ensure their records were complete and met the requirements.  The message warned that failure to comply with the instructions could be viewed as the lack of due diligence on the officer's part.

5.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, the evidence appears to show the applicant did not exercise reasonable diligence in viewing and certifying her MBF.  She provides no evidence to show that her not certifying her MBF was the reason for her non-selection.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any to show that a material error existed in her board file at the time she was considered for promotion and that error justifies reconsideration by an SSB.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140002682





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002682



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1