RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 March 2006
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050017234
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | |Member |
| |Mr. Larry W. Racster | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for a
change to his lieutenant colonel (LTC) date of rank (DOR).
2. The applicant states, in effect, he was informed that he failed to
submit sufficient evidence on how he came up with the DOR of 1 October 2004
he requested in his initial application. He claims that his request is
based on the DOR received by one of his peers, who had the same DOR to
captain (CPT).
3. The applicant provides a self-authored memorandum and associated
documents in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20050014165, on 20 October 2005.
2. During its original review, the Board found insufficient evidence to
support a change to his DOR to LTC. The Board acknowledged that he had
been selected for major and LTC by Special Selection Boards (SSBs), and it
was presumed that these boards assigned his promotion effective dates and
dates of rank in accordance with criteria under which the applicant was
selected in accordance with the governing law and regulation, and that the
applicant provided no evidence to the contrary.
3. The applicant now provides as new evidence, a self-authored memorandum
in which he supports his contention that his LTC DOR should be two months
earlier based on the DOR of one of his peers who had the same DOR to CPT.
He indicates that his career path was the same as the other officer he
cites as an example and states that he graduated from the Armor Basic
Officer Course with this officer, and that they were in the same year
group. He also states that this other officer was promoted to major on 1
December 1998, as he should have been, but the Army did not correct this
error until many years later. He states that then this other officer was
promoted to LTC on 1 October 2004, as he should have been. However, he was
given a 1 December 2004 DOR, which was two months later than his peer. He
claims that adjusting his DOR to match the peer in question would put him
back in line as if he were never passed over and would correct the Army's
error.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his LTC DOR should be adjusted based on
the DOR of one of his peers was carefully considered. However, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support amendment of the original Board
decision in this case.
2. The applicant is advised that each case before the Board is considered
based on the merits of the evidence provided, and relief is recommended
only in those cases where there is a preponderance of evidence provided
that proves an error or injustice exists. His assertion that his DOR
should be the same as an officer peer who started in the same year group is
not sufficiently compelling to support a conclusion that the SSB erred in
assigning his LTC DOR. There are many variables in the USAR promotion
system that could account for the two month difference in the LTC DOR
between the applicant and his peer.
3. As indicated by the Board during its original review, there is a
presumption that the DOR assigned by the SSB was accomplished in accordance
with the governing law and regulation. The applicant has failed to provide
new evidence that would support changing this original conclusion of the
Board.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___KAN _ ___LCB _ __LWR __ 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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050014165, dated 20 October 2005.
_____Kathleen A. Newman____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050017234 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |AR20050014165 2005/10/20 |
|DATE BOARDED |2006/03/14 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Chun |
|ISSUES 1. |102.0700 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006144C071029
The G-1 memorandum went on to state that the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components retains authority to grant military education waivers to requesting officers, but waivers must be granted under more restrictive conditions. The G-1 memorandum also stated that, in situations where the officer applying for a military education waiver does not meet the minimum conditions set out in paragraphs 2a through 2d, and the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components deems the case to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006343
The applicant requests, in effect: * adjustment of his mandatory removal date (MRD), from 31 August 2016 to 30 November 2019 * adjustment of his date of rank (DOR), from 17 December 2000 to 31 March 2004 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. he was reappointed and promoted in accordance with the provisions of the Wxxxxx lawsuit (Settlement Agreement, Lxxxx J. Wxxxxx vs. Fxxxxxx J. Hxxxxx, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army, U.S. District Court for the Western District of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015608
These orders stated, in part, "[Effective] on the date of entry on [active duty], you are appointed in the [Reserve grade] of CPT and placed on the ADL in the [grade] of CPT [in accordance with Army Regulation] 135-101 [Appointment of Reserve Commissioned Officers for Assignment to Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Branches]." c. Service on active duty or in an active status as a commissioned officer in any of the Uniformed Services, but not in the corps or professional specialty in which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020952
He was placed in the Retired Reserve after being twice non-selected for promotion to LTC only 4 years after being promoted to MAJ. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other Than General Officers) specifies that MAJ to LTC mandatory boards occur when an officer reaches 7 years TIG. d. ABCMR Docket Number AR20060014854, dated 17 January 2007, pertaining to his selection to MAJ by the SSB 2005SS12R7 adjourning on 4 November 2005 indicates the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073123C070403
Current promotion policy specifies that promotion reconsideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) and/or Special Selection Board (SSB) may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error that existed in the record at the time of consideration. The Board notes the applicant's contention that his DOR's for CPT and LTC should be adjusted based on his CSC awarded at appointment. Since his DOR for MAJ has been corrected to 6 June 1991, he is also eligible for promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007885
Had the SSBs considered the 2002 adjustment from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), "his records would have been promotable." e. Army Regulation 600-8-29 states promotion selection boards will base their recommendations on impartial consideration of all officers and an SSB will consider the record of the officer as it should have been considered by the original board. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was initially considered for promotion by the FY05...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077976C070215
As a result, he will have only one OER as a MAJ in his records when he is considered for promotion to LTC. Army Regulation Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. Thus, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to adjust the applicant’s DOR to 16 January 2001, which would account for his time on the TDRL and allow him the time to prove himself as a MAJ and gain the experience necessary to compete for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000543
If the applicant's appointment grade and DOR had been correct he would have been considered for below zone promotion at the FY 2010, LTC, ARNGUS, AR AGR, and AR Non-AGR Chaplain Corps Promotion Selection Boards, Competitive Categories. Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve - Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) states SSBs will not consider officers for below the zone promotion. As a result, the Board recommends...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004215C071029
The applicant states that his Captain (CPT) DOR was incorrectly determined in 1998 and, as a result, he was not considered for promotion to MAJ in 2001. By email dated 23 November 2003, the applicant was advised that his CPT DOR had been adjusted to 14 April 1993 and that he would be considered for promotion to MAJ by a special selection board (SSB) under the 2001 criteria. He was issued a promotion memorandum, dated 30 August 2004, which indicated he was promoted to MAJ with a promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014503
The applicant requests: a. his date of rank (DOR) to lieutenant colonel (LTC) be adjusted from 13 April 2005 to 15 June 2008 to correspond with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) adjusted Cohort Year Group 1993; b. his four Promotion Board pass-over's be zeroed out; c. the corrected record be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) related to Promotions, Command Senior Service College (SSC), and Professor of Military Science (PMS); and d. his name be deleted from the August...