MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            13 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012258

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Samuel Caldron		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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:  Promotion reconsideration to captain by a standby selection board.

APPLICANT STATES:  The reason she was passed over one-time for promotion was because she was never informed by the board that her records would be reviewed.  She further states than an updated Officer Records Brief, photo, college transcripts and certificates were missing from her records.

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

She was appointed in the Reserve from ROTC as a second lieutenant (2LT) effective 7 May 1988.

She was appointed in the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) as a 2LT effective 5 January 1990.  She was separated from the MSARNG effective 30 June 1991 and transferred to the USAR.  She was promoted to first lieutenant effective 23 May 1992.   

She received an Officer Evaluation Report for the period 2 January through 31 August 1990.  It was a substandard evaluation.

Based on the required 4 years time in grade for captain her promotion eligibility date (PED) was 22 May 1996.

She was considered but not selected for promotion to captain by the 1996 Fiscal and Calendar Year (F1 and F2) Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s).  The reason(s) was not divulged by the board except that it was not for a lack of military education.

Her records were complete and without material error when reviewed by the 1996 RCSB’s.

She was again considered but not selected for promotion to captain by the 1997 RCSB.  The reason(s) was not divulged by the board except that it was not for a lack of military education.

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 records 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.

This regulation also specifies that a copy of the officer’s records are dispatched 30 days before the convening date of the board and officers are directed to review the records and submit copies of missing documents and other corrections.  Lack of notification does not provide an independent basis to be reconsidered by a standby board.

This regulation further provides that Headquarters, Department of the Army will not determine that a material error existed when an administrative error was immaterial.

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotion, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion (COPY ATTACHED) that a review of the applicant’s records revealed that it was complete when considered by the 1996 F1 and F2 RCSB’s.  Therefore she has no basis for consideration by a Promotion Advisory Board.  All critical elements were present in the board consideration file.  The Boards saw her baccalaureate (BA) degree, military education certifications and an OER covering the period 2 January through 31 August 1990.  The applicant was also considered by the 1997 RCSB and nonselected.  A review of her board consideration file revealed that the board did not see her BA degree.  This would normally be a basis for consideration by a special selection board (SSB); however, it is doubtful that it would have made a difference in the board’s decision.  Therefore, in accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, she also has no basis for consideration by a SSB.  It was recommended the application be denied.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for her acknowledgment/rebuttal on 8 February 1999.  She did not respond.

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration to captain by a special selection board (SSB).  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.

2.  Her contentions that papers were missing from her records and that she was not informed that her records would be reviewed in 1996 have been noted by the board; however, the papers the applicant sites missing from her records were in fact reviewed by the 1996 F1 and F2 boards.  It is further noted that all required critical elements to include her OER, highest level of military and civilian education were reviewed.

3.  Her records were complete and without material error when reviewed by the 1996 F1 and F2 boards.  

4.  The Board further notes that her highest civilian education was not seen by the 1997 RCSB, which would normally be a basis for consideration by a SSB; however it has been determined that its absence was immaterial to her nonselection.  In accordance with pertinent regulation, this was considered an administrative error.  The Board also notes that promotion and retention in the Regular Army is keenly competitive, and that many officers will not be selected.

5.  Implicit in the Army's promotion system is the universally accepted and frequently discussed principle that officers have a responsibility for their own careers.  The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications.  Given that the applicant became a first lieutenant in 1992 and that she had to be considered by an RCSB so that, if selected, she could be promoted by the time she had served 4 years in grade, the applicant knew, or should have known, that she would be considered by an RCSB in 1996 and that she needed to insure, well in advance, that her record would present her career and qualifications to that board in the best possible light. 

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

7.  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

RVO_____  SC_____  KLW____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012258	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 May 13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.131.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.