IN THE CASE OF:  	

		BOARD DATE:  15 September 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019759


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, a determination as to whether he would have been promoted to chief warrant officer five (CW5) while on active duty and if so, reconsideration for promotion to CW5 by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was deployed during 5 of his last               10 promotion boards for CW4 and CW5.  His record was missing a number of training certificates or training documents when his CW5 promotion board convened.  Although his officer record brief reflected his courses and skill identifiers, his interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) official military personnel file (OMPF) did not contain the supporting documents.  He was twice non-selected to CW5; however, after he was released from active duty and his documents were correctly input into iPERMS, he was promoted to CW5 in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).

3.  The applicant provides the following:

* a four-page biographical summary
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for the Warrant Officer Staff Course, for the period 8 July 2002 thru 2 August 2002
* DA Form 1059 for the UH-60 Aviator Qualification Course, for the period 11 February 2003 thru 26 March 2003
* DA Form 1059 for the Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course, for the period 
7 December 2009 thru 18 December 2009 
* 17 documents reflecting training courses completed from 1997 to 2013
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving as a CW5 in the USAR; his date of rank is 12 August 2014. 

2.  Following prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) in the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) on 2 March 1988.

3.  He continued his service in the MIARNG and on 22 July 1998, he was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3).

4.  He entered active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom on 3 July 2003.  Following his entry on active duty, he deployed to Afghanistan on at least 3 occasions.

5.  He was appointed as a CW3 in the Regular Army on 11 November 2005 and he was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer four (CW4) on 1 June 2007.

6.  Orders 289-0504, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Rucker, AL on 16 October 2013, ordered his release from active duty effective 1 January 2014.

7.  Orders 351-0503, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Rucker, AL on 17 December 2013, amended Orders 289-0504 and assigned him to Detachment 2, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), in Huntsville, AL.

8.  He was honorably released from active duty on 1 January 2014, under the authority of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 2-37, by reason of non-selection, permanent promotion.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was assigned to Detachment 2, AMCOM, in Huntsville, AL and he was entitled to full separation pay upon his release from active duty.

9.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 3 March 2015 from the Chief, Officer Promotions, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY.  This official recommended denial of the applicant's request, stating that:

     a.  Based on a review of the documents provided, it appears the applicant is requesting the Department of the Army Secretariat hold a "mock" promotion selection board to determine if he would have been selected to the rank of CW5 while on the active duty list.  The request is based on his assumption that various training and certificates of training documents were missing from his board file in error; and if such mock board would recommend promotion selection, continue reconsideration by a formal Special Selection Board (SSB).

     b.  The Department of the Army Secretariat does not convene "mock" promotion selection boards or practice promotion boards to predetermine probable selects.  The exact reason(s) for his non-selection(s) for promotion are unknown because statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 613a prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone who was not a member of the presiding board.  Our initial review of his board files for CW5 consideration while on the active duty list indicates the training documents in question were available for board membership review.  It can only be concluded that the promotion board determined his overall record, when compared with the records of his contemporaries on the active duty list, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion to CW5 from previous boards.

     c.  All promotion selection board announcements allow every officer an opportunity to submit correspondence to the President of the Board and its members to address any issues he or she feel are important during consideration; failure to do so does not constitute material unfairness or a material error; reconsideration request for promotion must meet or exceed the guidance and policies set forth in 10 U.S.C., section 628: Special Selection Boards; AR 600-8-29, chapter 7; (RC) 10 U.S.C., section 14502: Special Selection Board; or AR 135-155, paragraph 3-19, including DODI 1320.11, and the conditions established within each respective promotion consideration MILPER Message.

10.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 4 March 2015, for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. However, he did not respond.

11.  He provides the following documents that he states were missing from his iPERMS file during his second consideration for promotion to CW5 in 2013:

* a four-page biographical summary
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), Warrant Officer Staff Course, during the period 8 July 2002 thru 2 August 2002
* DA Form 1059, UH-60 Aviator Qualification Course, during the period     11 February 2003 thru 26 March 2003
* DA Form 1059, Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course, during the period 
7 December 2009 thru 18 December 2009 
* 17 documents reflecting training courses completed from 1997 to 2013

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) provides the Army's policies and procedures on officer promotions.  Chapter 7 provides guidance on SSBs.  It states SSBs may be convened (discretionary) to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when Department of the Army discovers that the officer was not considered by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error; the board that considered an officer acted contrary to law or made a material error; or the board that considered the officer did not have before it some material information.  Reconsideration will normally not be granted when an administrative error was immaterial (minor) or when the officer, by exercising reasonable care, could have detected and corrected the error.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for promotion reconsideration to CW5 by an SSB has been carefully considered.

2.  He states and his record confirms that he was a non-selection for promotion to CW5 twice and therefore, was honorably released from active duty.  He contends that various training certificates and documents were missing from his records when his promotion boards convened, and those omissions resulted in his non-selection.

3.  While the exact reason(s) for his non-selection by a promotion board are unknown because of statutory requirements, the applicant would have been afforded the opportunity to review his records to ensure they were accurate prior to the convening of each of his promotion boards.  He also had the opportunity to submit correspondence to each board President to address any issues he felt important.

4.  It would have seemed appropriate to address his contention after his first non-selection if documents were missing from his records.  However, the provided advisory opinion stated that an initial review of his board files for CW5 consideration indicated that the documents in question were available for the board membership to review.

5.  Selection boards use the "whole file concept" when making promotion recommendations.  Board members do not put undue focus on any one item.  Selection board members review all evaluation reports, a record of the officer's 
training history, civilian and military education and other critical elements, the photograph, and awards and decorations.  Selections are made against standing and selected Army requirements.

6.  Each board considers all officers eligible for promotion consideration, but it may only select a number within established selection constraints.  The Secretary of the Army, in his Memorandum of Instructions, establishes limits on the number of officers to be selected.  The selection process is an extremely competitive process based on the "whole officer" concept.  It is an unavoidable fact that some officers considered for promotion will not be selected.  There are always more outstanding officers who are fully qualified to perform duty at the next higher grade, but who are not selected because of selection capability restrictions.

7.  By law, promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection.  Inasmuch as the ABCMR 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.

8.  Since promotion selection boards are not authorized by law to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection of any officer, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known.  A non-selected officer can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his or her 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.  

9.  The ABCMR is not a promotion board; if and when it determines an error, the ABCMR directs an appropriate agency to take corrective action.  The corrective action with promotion issues is normally via an SSB.  In order to qualify for an SSB, there must be a material error.  The applicant did not conclusively show that a material administrative error occurred; therefore, there is no basis to support placing his record before a SSB for promotion reconsideration.  

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)                                         AR20100024805



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019759



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1