IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012014 


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.  This applicant requests, in effect: 

* review of the denial of automatic appointment to the rank of second lieutenant (2LT) in 1988
* review of his dismissal from warrant officer school in 1993
* review of his non-selection for promotion to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 prior to his retirement in January 2001

2.  The applicant states: 

	a.  He initially submitted a detailed letter along with supporting documents as evidence to the President of the United States and to a former Army Chief of Staff.  He requested their assistance for administrative and adjudicative actions to rectify blatant U.S. Army Personnel Management Command oversights and mismanagement, which prevented him from receiving his direct appointment as a 2LT which only entailed receiving the oath of office to become an Army officer. The letter and documents were forwarded to the previous Secretary of Defense and subsequently forwarded to the Army Review Board Chief of Congressional and Special Actions and the Director of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in March of 2011.  

	b.  He requested an automatic direct appointment to 2LT because of the U.S. Army Personnel Command's oversight and mismanagement, which caused the misplacement of his entire direct appointment application packet, submitted in October 1987.  According to a letter received from the Military Personnel Center in St Louis, MO, dated 14 March 1988, the direct appointment application process was subsequently ordered to undergo reconstruction and regulative changes.  Alternative actions for resubmission or length of time for the completion of the procedural changes to take affect was never given or known.  He had to conduct a research in order to find out progress of the reconstruction and if it was near completion.  He found out over a year later that he was not eligible to apply due to regulatory change, which entailed an age restriction at the age of 29.  No consideration was given for the four years of Reserve Officers’ Training Course (ROTC) received including Advance Camp completion.  A promotion to the grade of 2LT in his case would have only required the recital of the Oath of Office, to be sworn in as an Army officer. 

	c.  He was denied entry into Officer Candidate School (OCS) although he had completed the prerequisite.  The Army Personnel Command, again, did not take under consideration the 4 years of ROTC already received and he could have easily been transitioned by receiving the oath of office without any further training other than entry into an Officer Basic Course and placement on active duty as an officer.  He should have been given an automatic appointment to the grade of 2LT or warrant officer because he was allowed to enter the Warrant Officer Candidate School on 19 August 1993 without consideration for the 4 years of ROTC received.  No further training was necessary because he had already received advanced training on military leadership, tactics, and management.  In view of being selected and allowed to enter the Warrant Officer Academy showed no indication or concern for his welfare or understanding of what the Army regulation entailed.

	d.  He entered the Warrant Officer School on 19 August 1993.  During his first week of training, he was selected for two special assignments, the class primary guidon bearer and fire marshal.  The assignments encroached and placed a restriction upon his study time and preparation for the following day's personal area of inspections.  He was never relieved of those responsibilities.  He had complained to his training officers about the additional duties and not receiving assistance from members of the class but he was not allowed to.  According to the school's protocols it was not in the best interest of a candidate to habitually complain in order to derelict their duties.  He had made the decision to curtail complaints for fear of being ostracized by his training officers for lack of leadership, dereliction of duties, or failure to follow directives.  He was eliminated from the course for reasons of progression according to the school's administrators, which should not have been allowed.  There were instances of harassment, discrimination, favoritism dereliction by the school training officers' administrative duties, and insensitivity to his needs as a candidate.  

	e.  There were school regulatory policies such as U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC) Regulation 350-20, which pertained to honor code violations, student setback for more training and retesting.  There were double standards during his attendance of which he became a victim.  He was counseled by two of his class' training officers and was told that after 6 months he would be eligible to return since he was borderline.  During the elimination proceedings, he tried mentioning it to the school's administrators but they ignored his training officer's recommendation and would not consider him for future training.  He wrote the Pentagon's Inspector General and requested their assistance.  He received correspondence from the Pentagon stating that they will pursue his case but was contacted later without any action considered.  In view of all of the ramifications of his case, he feels that after his past training as a college ROTC student was revealed, created a conflict of interest, and prompted his elimination without the possibility of returning.  If he was given the opportunity to complete the Warrant Officer Course, upon completion, he would have received a warrant officer appointment which is lower in grade than a 2LT.

	f.  He should have been selected for promotion to SFC prior to leaving the military because he was never given the opportunity to attend his senior level Noncommissioned Officer Advanced Course for his military occupational specialty (MOS) due to no fault of his own; therefore, prevented him from being competitive among his peers for promotion.  He was also assigned to various positions designated for a SFC or above within his MOS and other specialties as well.  He had not received any advance training within his MOS or any other.  He requested a Standby Enlisted Review Board to review his records for promotion on four occasions but had not received any returned correspondence.  There were inequalities within the promotion system.  Individuals were being promoted ahead of others with less time in service and grade.  A copy of an erroneous award was found in his microfiche during a personal file review at Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN, in 1994 and he requested that the document be removed.  Any derogatory findings of that nature adversely affect a Soldier's chances for promotion.  He had also visited his branch at the Hoffman Building in Alexandria, VA, on numerous occasions to inquire about his promotion but was not given any clarification or specifics of what the problems were during the promotion selection process.  His branch chiefs told him that they could not determine what the problem was because they were not on the promotion panel. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* Application for direct appointment
* Application for OCS
* Recommendations for Warrant Officer Candidate School
* Warrant Officer Candidate Evaluation and Additional Duty Assignment
* USAAVNC Form 646 (Report of Observation)
* USAAVNC Regulation 350-1
* Primary Training Officer Consultation
* Class Commandant Consultation 
* Academic Report, Elimination Recommendation, and Request for Extension
* Character witness, class roster, and rebuttal memorandum
* ROTC documents
* Warrant Officer Basic Course Assignment Orders
* NCO Evaluation Reports
* Erroneous award
* Interim Duty Assignment Orders
* Request for Standby Advisory Board
* Letter to the President of the United States 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1981 and he held MOS 55B (Ammunition Specialist).  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of assignments and he attained the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 May 1991. 

3.  He retired on 31 January 2001 and he was placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SSG/E-6 on 1 February 2001.  He completed 20 years and 11 days of active service.  

4.  He provides multiple documents related to appointment as an officer, attendance at and disenrollment from Warrant Officer School, as follows: 

	a.  Application for Reserve appointment submitted in October 1987 and resubmitted in March 1988, together with letters of recommendations.  Following acceptance of this application, he appeared before a local OCS board on 11 April 1989.  On 27 July 1989, Accessions Branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA advised him that his application was considered but he was not selected.  He was also advised that he could reapply, if eligible, one year after the adjournment date (29 June 1989) of the selection board.  

	b.  Application for Warrant Officer Candidate School together with letters of recommendation.  On 9 June 1993, Headquarters, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, KY, notified him that he was selected by the Warrant Officer Selection Board for May 1993, and that he was tentatively scheduled to attend the Warrant Officer Candidate School at Fort Rucker, AL, on or about 24 August 1993. 

	c.  Attendance records at the Warrant Officer Candidate School at Fort Rucker, AL, together with evaluations, additional duty appointments, multiple reports of observation, and multiple training officer consultations.  His consultation sheets show he was below average and did not demonstrate the characteristics required to become an effective leader.  His personal area was declining (instead of improving), his tests scores were substandard, his leadership performance was weak, his judgment was questionable, and his academic records reflected multiple failures.  Additionally, he has acquired 29 pink slips for various minor infractions, failed an academic evaluation on basic doctrine, received the lowest peer evaluation, was placed on probation, and demonstrated deficient communication skills.  

	d.  Record of Student Elimination Action, initiated by the 1st Warrant Officer Company, on 27 September 1993, citing the applicant's failure to progress.  The applicant presented oral and written statements to his commander in rebuttal to the elimination action.  His chain of command recommended his elimination and on 30 September 1993, the Commandant, Warrant Officer Career Center approved the recommendation for elimination.  The applicant was advised of and acknowledged receipt of this elimination action on 4 October 1993.  He subsequently appealed the decision but his appeal was denied by the Deputy Commanding General on 14 October 1993. 

	e.  Letter, dated 11 January 1994, from Office of the Inspector General, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA, informing him that his elimination was conducted to standards and followed established procedures. 

	f.  Multiple NCO Evaluation Reports for various rating periods from March 1989 through November 2000.  He was mostly rated "Fully Capable" or "Among the Best" by his raters and "Superior" by his senior raters. 
	g.  A certificate, dated 29 June 1993, awarding him the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement. 

	h.  Request for Standby Advisory Board, dated 22 April 1997, addressed to the Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA with a recommended approval cover sheet from his servicing personnel service battalion. 

	i.  A character witness, dated 14 August 1994, from a warrant officer who states that despite the length of time that had elapsed since his attendance at the Warrant Officer Candidate School, he believed if the applicant was given a chance he would have completed the course. 

	j.  A letter, dated 20 February 2012, to the President of the United States. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant does not state what specific record he wants corrected.  However, he raises three points of contention and in effect, requests a review of his non-selection for OCS, his elimination from Warrant Officer Candidate School, and his non-selection for SFC/E-7. 

2.  With respect to his OCS packet: 

	a.  The applicant submitted an application for appointment as a commissioned officer of the Army.  Following his submission, he was considered by an OCS board and his complete packet was forwarded to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA, for consideration.  An OCS Selection Board considered his case but did not select him.  

	b.  The reason for his non-selection is unknown as the records pertaining to that selection board no longer exist.  However, the OCS selection process is an extremely competitive process based on the "whole Soldier" concept.  It is an unavoidable fact that some Soldiers considered for appointment will not be selected.  There are always more outstanding Soldiers who are fully qualified but who are not selected because of selection capability restrictions.

	c.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to presume that the OCS Selection Board determined that his overall record, when compared with the records of contemporaries, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for appointment.  Since he was not selected by the OCS Selection Board, he could not execute an oath of office or receive an appointment memorandum and thus he was ineligible to attend OCS.

3.  As for Warrant Officer Candidate School: 

	a.  The available evidence, provided by the applicant, shows his attendance at the Warrant Officer Candidate School was not a successful one.  His consultation sheets show he was below average and did not demonstrate the characteristics required to become an effective leader.  His personal area was declining, tests scores were substandard, leadership performance was weak, judgment was questionable, and his academic records reflected multiple failures. He had acquired 29 pink slips for various minor infractions, failed an academic evaluation on basic doctrine, received the lowest peer evaluation, was placed on probation, and demonstrated deficient communication skills.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated elimination action against him. 

	b.  His elimination action appears to have been compliant with established procedures.  He was given the opportunity to submit statements in conjunction with his elimination action as well as the opportunity to appeal his elimination action.  His appeal was ultimately denied.  

	c.  His dissatisfaction with the outcome, some 20 years after his elimination, does not invalidate his elimination action.  

4.  With respect to his promotion to SFC/E-7: 

	a.  It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to SFC while he was on active duty; however, it is a well known fact that not everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are promotion allocations.  Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the time.  

	b.  It is also a well-known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection.  This means his statement that he was denied promotion is inaccurate and speculative at best.  Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records that were considered by those boards that did not select the applicant it must be presumed that what the board did was correct.  Since promotion selection boards are not authorized by law to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection of any NCO, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known. 

	c.  A non-selected NCO can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his overall record, when compared with the records of contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion.  Each board considers all eligible NCOs for promotion consideration, but it may only select a number within established selection constraints.  

5.  After a comprehensive review of the applicant's records and the evidence he presents, neither an error nor an injustice could be found.  As such, there is nothing to correct. 

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)                                         AR20140012014



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012014



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1