MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Ed Clark		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration for promotion to the grade of colonel.

APPLICANT STATES:  That both the uncorrected and corrected version of his officer evaluation report covering the period October 1986 through October 
1987 were on his official military personnel file (OMPF) at the time of the 
1997 colonel promotion board.  In essence, he is contending that the presence of both OERs on his OMPF led to his nonselection for promotion.  In support of the application, he submitted a copy of a 10 February 1998 letter signed by the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) Inspector General (IG).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

That during the period of time in question, 13 October 1986 through 12 October 1987, he was serving in the rank of major as the 3rd U. S. Army aerial delivery officer.

The corrected OER, Part VI (a), Intermediate Rater Comments, shows the abbreviation “ARPERCEN” and a date, 11 December 1992 ,followed by the statement “This report has been modified in compliance with a DA, DCSPER Special Review Board Action” followed by a signature block signed for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel by the Chief, Appeals Branch.

The 10 February 1998 letter signed by the ARPERCEN IG and submitted by the applicant shows that it is a response to the applicant’s request for assistance regarding a copy of a corrected copy of the contested OER being placed in his OMPF.  The IG advised that the contested OER was removed and replaced by a corrected OER; that it was possible that the uncorrected action could provide a basis for consideration to the grade of colonel; and that if he was not selected for promotion he could request a standby board.

On 22 May 1998 the Board was advised (COPY ATTACHED) by the Chief, Promotions and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command, that the applicant was considered but not recommended for promotion by the 1997 DA Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB); that when his file was viewed by the board it contained all of his pertinent documents including the corrected OER covering the period 13 October 1986 through 12 October 1987; and that the uncorrected OER was not in the file when it was viewed by the board.  Denial of the applicant’s request was recommended.

On 6 July 1998 the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and advised that he could submit a rebuttal to the opinion within 30 days.  He did not respond.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policy and procedures for promotion to colonel.  The regulation states that colonel selection boards will convene at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and will recommend only the best qualified from the list of those fully qualified for promotion.  The Secretary will also prescribe the maximum number of officers to be recommended as determined by existing or anticipated vacancies in the Reserve grade of colonel and the maximum number allowed by law.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual's nonselection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for nonselection, except where an individual is not qualified due to noncompletion of required military schooling.  The regulation also specifies that selection for promotion is a recognition of potential for service in the higher grade, it is not a reward for past service.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was considered but not recommended for promotion by the 
1997 RCSB.  The reason(s) was not divulged by the RCSB except that it was not for a lack of military education.

2.  The applicant’s record was complete and without material error at the time he was considered by the RCSB.

3.  The foregoing is supported by the advisory opinion provided by the Chief, Promotions and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JH______  RWG___  DSJ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-08759	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 January 20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A AD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.