IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 8 July 2014 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006954 


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, promotion to captain (CPT) and extension in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to complete 20 years of service. 

2.  She states that in December 2006 she accepted a commission in the Army Reserve, Nurse Corps, with the 322nd Medical Company.  She was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) in August 2009.  She maintains that she has been fully qualified for promotion to CPT since 2010 and provides a list of her qualifications. Additionally, she states she has completed the CPT Career Course Phase I and II.  She has also completed a Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degree and has maintained a nursing licensure as needed for a specialty 66H (Medical/Surgery Nurse).  She believes she was erroneously discharged from the USAR as a three time passover.

3.  She provides:

* Self-authored statement
* Congressional correspondence
* Orders 13-081-00076, dated 22 March 2013
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record)
* Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degree
* University of Michigan-Flint transcript
* National Registry Emergency Medical Technicians certificate, dated 8 July 2010
* Associate in Applied Science Degree, dated 12 May 2006
* Certificates of Achievement
* General Associate Degree, dated 10 May 2012
* High School Diploma, dated May 1996
* DA Form 71 (Oath of Office)
* U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Basic Course (Reserve Component (RC)) certificate
* Certificate of Recognition
* DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated
4 May 2009, 25 June 2011, and 22 July 2000
* Individual Active Duty Certificates of Performance, dated 5 May 2009 and 25 June 2011
* Certificate of Completion
* AMEDD Captains Career (RC) Course certificate
* Numerous Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs)
* Portal Points Details
* RC Noncommissioned Officers Primary Leadership Development Course
* Certificates of Appreciation 
* Certificates of Training
* Airborne Course Completion Certificate with Orders 194-328, dated 
13 July 1998
* Congratulatory letters
* Honorable Discharge Certificate
* Army Achievement Medal Certificates, dated 8 October 1996 and
11 December 1999 
* U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal Certificate, dated 
22 January 2006
* National Defense Service Medal Certificate
* Road Test and Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services Certification 
* ARPC Form 249-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), dated 13 March 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior enlisted service in both the Army and the U.S. Navy Reserve, on 14 December 2006, the applicant was appointed as a USAR second lieutenant, Army Nurse Corps.

2.  On 29 March 2007, she was notified that she was considered for promotion to the grade of 1LT by an Administrative Promotion Board that convened on 1 March 2007.  She was found not qualified for promotion by the board.  The reason cited was her failure to complete the military education requirement as outlined in Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers). 
3.  On 20 August 2008, she was promoted to 1LT with an effective date and a date of rank of 20 August 2008.

4.  On 4 May 2009, she completed the Officer Basic Leadership Course (RC).

5.  Copies of the applicant's non-selection memoranda for promotion to CPT were not contained in her available file.  However, Orders 13-081-00076, dated 22 March 2013, show she was honorably discharged from the USAR on 1 April 2013 for being a "3X passover for promotion to CPT."  

6.  A review of the applicant's six OERs covering the periods 14 December 2006 through 13 December 2012 show she was rated as a Clinical Nurse while assigned to the 322nd Medical Company, Southfield, MI.  These reports show she was consistently rated as "Satisfactory Performance, Promote" by all of her raters and assessed as "Fully Qualified" by her senior raters with supporting comments.  The only exception to the senior raters' assessment of "Fully Qualified" were her two OERs for the periods 14 December 2008 through
13 December 2009 and 14 December 2009 to 13 December 2010 when she was rated as "Best Qualified."

7.  There is no evidence and she did not provide any to show that she disagreed with the ratings rendered by her raters and/or senior raters.

8.  On 14 May 2014, in the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotion Management, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY.  This official stated:

   a.  The applicant was considered and subsequently non-selected by the Fiscal Years (FY) 2011, 2012, and 2013, RC, CPT, AMEDD Promotion Selection Boards.  The official said the exact reasons for the applicant's non-selection for promotion on the aforementioned boards were unknown because statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14104 prevents disclosure of board proceedings to anyone outside the promotion board in question.  
   
   b.  He stated that the decision to recommend an officer for promotion is based upon the criteria established by the Secretary of the Army (SA) and the collective judgment of the respective board member as to the relative merit of an officers overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered,  It can only be concluded that the previous promotion boards determined that her overall record, when compared with the records of her contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion.
   c.  The official stated that after a review of the applicant's associated promotion files, he opined that although she was fully educationally qualified for all three of the respective boards, the probable reasons for her previous non-selection were based upon six substandard "Satisfactory Performance" OERs for the periods 14 December 2006 to 13 December 2012.  Any one of the aforementioned evaluations would have greatly diminished her promotion standing and greatly reduced her chances of selection.  He further stated that the applicant has not provided evidence or grounds of any material error(s) that would qualify for a Special Selection Board (SSB) reconsideration.
   
9.  On 1 June 2014, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion.  She said it was noted that she was fully qualified for promotion with both military and civilian education, no errors were found in her records, and the possible non-selection was due to her six "Satisfactory Performance" OERs for six consecutive years.  She stated that she also had two out of six years of OERs that rated her best qualified for promotion.  She offered that some of her evaluations were completed by Soldiers who did not know her well enough to complete a full evaluation.  She explained that during the last two years in the Reserves, there were many changes within her unit and her rating chain.  She opined that it was unfair to have such an unorganized evaluation system be the reason to end a Soldier's career and retirement opportunity.

10.  Army Regulation 135-155 provides guidelines on promotion board procedures.

   a.  Paragraph 3-10 states that the Secretary of the Army (SA) or their designee will issue a Memorandum of Instructions (MOI) to selection boards prescribing the oath to be taken by board members.  The MOI will include the zone of consideration as well as guidance to the board on methods of selection, reports to be furnished, and any other administrative details required.  The MOI is issued by authority of the SA.  Accordingly, the MOI may override certain provisions of this regulation for a particular board, provided such supersession is not contrary to law or other controlling regulation.  The MOI will direct that the board, in pertinent part, to:

* Review the evaluation report files when determining an officer's qualifications
* Select officers using the fully or best-qualified method, as covered in the MOI

   b.  The regulation also states that a 1LT on the Reserve Active-Status List who has failed to be selected for promotion to CPT for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to CPT, will be removed from active status not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the final approval authority approves the report of the board which considered the officer for the second time unless the officer can be credited with 18 or more but less than 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay an officer who twice fails to be selected for promotion to the grade of CPT, MAJ, or LTC will be removed from active status unless subsequently placed on a promotion list, selected for continuation, or retained under any other provision of law. 
   
	c.  Paragraph 3-21 states that officers who discover a material error existed in their file at the time they were non-selected for promotion may request reconsideration by an SSB.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to CPT and extension in the USAR to complete 20 years of service. 

2.  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.  The reasons for her non-selection were unknown because board deliberations are not a matter of record.  However, after a review of the applicant's promotion file, the Chief, Officer Promotion Management, HRC, opined that the probable reasons for her non-selection were based upon six "substandard" OERs.  

3.  The applicant responded to the advisory opinion explaining that there were many changes within her unit and her rating chain.  She said it was unfair to have such an unorganized evaluation system be the reason to end her career.  The evidence of record also shows the applicant had received six OERs in six years where she was assessed as "Satisfactory Performance" by her rater.  There is no evidence and she did not provide any to show that she disagreed with the raters' assessment of her performance.  One cannot argue after the fact that the evaluation system was flawed when she took no active role in ensuring that her OERs were an accurate assessment of her demonstrated performance of duty during the rating periods.

4.  Nevertheless, 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.

5.  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)                                         AR20140006954



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006954



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1