MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 October 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-05733

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms.	Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr.	Lester Echols		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. 	Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

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

	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 to chief warrant officer four (CW4).

APPLICANT STATES:  That his promotion packet was never forwarded for consideration through no fault of his own.  He was eligible and met all criteria.  He submits copies of his officer evaluation reports (OER’s) and other documentation in support of his application.

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

He was appointed in the Army National Guard (ARNG) as a warrant officer one on 11 October 1978.  He was promoted to CW3 on 29 May 1990.

On 20 March 1992, he transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

He was appointed in the ARNG on 28 November 1994.  He was in a voluntary inactive status from 1 April through 19 September 1995.  He was later separated on 20 December 1995 and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

He was considered and recommended for promotion to CW4 by the 1995 Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB) which convened on 2 May 1995 with a promotion eligibility date (PED) of 29 May 1996.

His records show he was not promoted to CW4.

Army Regulation (AR) 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 further provides that an officer who has been recommended for promotion to the next higher grade be in an active Reserve status.  An officer removed from active status before promotion is final will be removed from the promotion list.  The officer will not be considered for a promotion until at least 1 year after the date of return to an active status.

The regulation also specifies that promotion service does not include inactive service.

National Guard Bureau Regulation 600-101 provides for promotion of warrant officers in the ARNG.

The Chief, Promotion and Notification Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion (COPY ATTACHED) that the applicant was appointed in the ARNG on 28 November 1994 and prior to his appointment his file was identified for consideration by the 1995 RCSB that convened from 2 may through 19 May 1995.  The RCSB’s do not consider ARNG warrant officers for promotion.  Had the Office of Promotions known that the applicant had been appointed in the ARNG, his name would have been deleted from the consideration list.  Therefore, he was erroneously considered and selected for promotion to CW4 by the 1995 RCSB.  Since he was not eligible for consideration, his name has been deleted from the official board results.  It was further opined that the applicant was in an inactive NG (ING) status for a period of 5 months and 18 days from 1 April through 19 September 1995.  Based on the requirement for 6 years time in grade, and the inactive time, his PED was 17 November 1996.  He would have been eligible for consideration by the 1996 RCSB; however, he had to transfer out of an inactive status for 1 year prior to consideration by a selection board.  He was again appointed in the ARNG as a CW3, effective 24 October 1996; therefore, he was ineligible for any Reserve Board.  It is not known why the applicant was not promoted while in the ARNG; however, based on the facts presented, the PERSCOM recommended the applicant’s request be denied.

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.  In view of all of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion to CW4.  He has not shown error or injustice, or any other satisfactory justification for the relief he now requests.

2.  The Board has noted his contention that his records were never forwarded to the promotion board; however, it is not sufficiently supported by his records, his application, or the evidence of record.  There is no error or injustice in his record. His records were reviewed by the 1995 RCSB and he was recommended for promotion.  However, he was voluntarily transferred to the ING during the promotion process, and therefore canceling any promotion action in process.

3. The Board further notes even though he was selected for promotion on his PED, his promotion could not be accomplished, because he transferred to the ING, an inactive status.

4.  The Board also notes here that since the applicant is in the ARNG, his promotion to CW4 is the responsibility of the ARNG, and that he should contact his Commander or Personnel Officer for information and assistance.

5.  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.

6.  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

RVC____  KAK____  LE ______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-05733	
SUFFIX		
RECON	N/A	
DATE BOARDED	1998 October 1998	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.