IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019448 


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 consideration for promotion to captain (CPT)/pay grade O-3 by a special selection board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He was not selected for promotion to CPT by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (it appears he meant 2014) CPT promotion board.

	b.  The promotions branch has not given him a reason why he was not selected, stating that the board has a non-disclosure agreement.

	c.  He certified his board file on time and had no derogatory files.  However, circumstances out of his control displayed an incomplete picture of his performance and duty positions which may have influenced the board's decision.  He has incomplete key developmental time on his Officer Record Brief (ORB) and less than 12 months in platoon leader time.  However, he was moved early from his platoon to fill an engineer CPT position on a Security Force Advisory Team (SFAT).  This is not reflected on his ORB because during deployment he was moved to become the assistant S-3 for his squadron.  His chain of command instructed him to only include the assistant S-3 officer position on his ORB and leave out the SFAT.

	d.  He filed a request for reconsideration to address this issue after the board's decision, but it was immediately rejected because it did not constitute a material error for SSB reconsideration.

	e.  He has letters of recommendation from his squadron commander and current troop commander that address this issue.

3.  The applicant provides:

* his request for reconsideration
* two letters of support
* DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade Plate Officer Evaluation Report)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior active enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve on 8 September 2011 with concurrent order to active duty.  He was promoted to first lieutenant on 8 March 2013.

2.  On an unknown date, he was considered but not selected for promotion to CPT.

3.  He provided a letter from his troop commander, dated 18 August 2014, who states:

	a.  The applicant deserves reconsideration for promotion to CPT.

	b.  Circumstances beyond his control displayed an incomplete picture of his performance and duty positions.  Had specific information been known at the time he was considered by the board, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that he would have been recommended for promotion.

	c.  He was removed from his platoon after 9 months and assigned to a SFAT as the engineer advisor, a position that was not included on his ORB or for which he was rated.  He was chosen to fill an CPT/O-3 position as the team's engineer advisor, in the most lethal district in the regiment's area of operation.  He additionally served in the squadron's operations section in order to plan and execute the retrograde of three bases across the district.

	d.  His ORB and officer evaluation report (OER) reflect his time in the operations section, but his SFAT service was removed at the recommendation of his previous chain of command.  He was assigned to an SFAT team despite not meeting key developmental time as a platoon leader.  The decision to move him was not based on performance but out of necessity to meet the current mission due to personnel shortages.

	e.  Due to the timing of his move to a new squadron within the regiment and the deployment timeline, only one annual OER had been rendered.  A second annual OER was issued shortly after the board file closed and was not included.  This OER reflected the applicant's excellent performance during his deployment and would certainly have had a positive influence on the promotion board's members.

	f.  He personally served with the applicant on the same SFAT in Afghanistan and subsequently requested his assignment as executive officer once he was selected as the headquarters troop commander for the engineer squadron.  He is currently the best of six lieutenants in the troop and is undoubtedly deserving of reconsideration for promotion to CPT.  He will excel as a company commander.

4.  He also provided a letter from his squadron commander, dated 18 August 2014, who states:

	a.  The applicant is unequivocally one of his finest leaders.  While he understands and supports the Army's force reduction, he is convinced the Army is mistaken in not selecting him for promotion to CPT.

	b.  The circumstances that led to his being overlooked for promotion, coupled with his maturity and intellect, make him an ideal candidate for reconsideration.  He represents the very best of our Nation's talented pool of leaders and he deserves the opportunity to be reconsidered for promotion based on circumstances that resulted in a poor assessment of his true potential.

	c.  The applicant is currently the executive officer in their headquarters troop and has quickly established himself as one of the best leaders he has ever served with; he is truly deserving of reconsideration.  He has been instrumental in building the troop headquarters from the ground up and is well respected by his Soldiers as the epitome of leader presence, character, and competence.

	d.  Regardless of the task, the applicant is a proven performer in both peace-time and combat, whose judgment, even under the most stressful situations, he trusts implicitly.  He has no doubt that the applicant will make an exceptional company commander and continue to excel in the Army.

5.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions, U.S. Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY.  The opinion states that based on the information provided, the applicant's request does not have merit for an SSB.  The advisory official pointed out:

	a.  Paragraph 7-3 of Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prohibits SSB approval for administrative errors on the ORB; this along with Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1320.11 (Special Selection Boards), specifies that an individual will not be reconsidered for promotion by an SSB if by maintaining reasonably careful records and in exercising reasonable diligence, he or she could have discovered and taken steps to correct that error.

	b.  By the applicant's account no error occurred.  All promotion selection board (PSB) Military Personnel (MILPER) Message announcements remind and afford all officers the opportunity to view and correct any deficiencies on the ORB or documents within the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  It also informs any officer of the option to submit correspondence to the President of the board to address any issues he or she feels is important during consideration, such as a letter of notice to the board referencing mission(s), position(s), or key developmental time; failure to do so does not constitute material unfairness or a material error.

	c.  MILPER Message Number 14-015 was issued on 21 January 2014, some 78 days before the convening date of the aforementioned board.  The applicant viewed and certified his My/Promotion Board file on 28 March 2014 but elected not to submit a letter to the President of the Board.  The exact reason(s) for the applicant's non-selection for promotion is unknown because statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 613a, prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone who was not a member of the presiding board.

	d.  The decision to deny the applicant's request for an SSB was not arbitrary, capricious, or erratic, nor was it in violation of Army Regulation 600-8-29, DODI 1320.11, or any regulatory guidance or instructions associated with SSBs or PSBs.  Therefore, based on the above, reconsideration of promotion to CPT by an SSB can only occur as a directive by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

6.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of Army commissioned and warrant officers on the Active Duty List.

	a.  Paragraph 7-2 states SSBs may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned officers for promotion when Headquarters, Department of the Army, discovers one or more of the following:  an officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly-scheduled board because of administrative error (SSB required), the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary), or the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary).

	b.  Paragraph 7-3 (Cases Not Considered) states an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when an administrative error was immaterial or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or the OMPF.  The ORB is a summary document of information generally available elsewhere in the officer's record.  It is the officer's responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention he was not given a reason why he was not selected was noted.  However, the reasons for his non-selection are not known; by law, promotion boards may not divulge that information.

2.  He contends there are errors on his ORB due to circumstances beyond his control.  However, the governing regulation prohibits SSB approval for administrative errors on the ORB.

3.  The advisory official points out:

	a.  All PSB MILPER Message announcements remind and afford all officers the opportunity to view and correct any deficiencies on the ORB or documents within the OMPF.  It also informs any officer of the option to submit correspondence to the President of the board to address any issues he or she feels is important during consideration, such as a letter of notice to the board referencing mission(s), position(s), or key developmental time; failure to do so does not constitute material unfairness or a material error.

	b.  The applicant viewed and certified his promotion board file on 28 March 2014 but elected not to submit a letter to the President of the Board.

4.  His request for promotion consideration to CPT by an SSB and the two letters of support were carefully considered.  However, the evidence shows he was considered but non-selected for promotion to CPT.  There is no evidence of material error.  He has provided insufficient evidence to show he should be considered for promotion to CPT 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 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)                                         AR20140019448



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019448



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1