MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 October 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-06560

	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	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 major.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his civilian education was not reviewed by the promotion board and his military education had not been updated.

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

He was appointed in the Reserve as a second lieutenant effective 10 August 1984 and entered on active duty the same day.  He was promoted to first lieutenant effective 10 February 1986 and captain effective 1 January 1989.  

He was released from active duty on 1 August 1993 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

His records show his last officer evaluation report (OER) was for the period 16 October 1992 through 1 July 1993.

He was considered but nonselected for promotion to major by the 1996 and 1997 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB’s) which convened on 11 March 1996 and 10 March 1997.  The reason(s) was not divulged by the boards except that it was not for 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 such error(s) been corrected at the time of the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that board 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 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.  And 

that an administrative error was immaterial if the officer in exercising reasonable diligence could have discovered the error or omission and taken timely corrective action notifying Headquarters, Department of the Army with supporting documentation.

The regulation further specifies that individuals twice not selected for promotion to major will be transferred to the Retired Reserve if they are eligible and request such transfer, or retained in the active Reserve when more than 18 but less than 20 qualifying years of service have been completed, or discharged.

The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), a public law enacted by Congress on 5 October 1994 prescribes the policies and procedures to consolidate and modernize the laws that govern Reserve Component Officers.  The law became effective 1 October 1996.  ROPMA specifies that selection for promotion consideration to major will remain in the officer’s sixth year of time in grade as a captain and not later than the seventh year time in grade.

ROPMA further specifies that individuals twice not selected for promotion to major are subject to the appropriate separation provisions.  However, under ROPMA, the Secretary of the Army may determine that the Reserve of the Army required the services of captains who are twice not selected.  The Secretary then may authorize, at his discretion, the convening of a selective continuation board and that officers must apply for consideration.  If the board’s recommendation is approved by the Secretary, a captain may serve until the last day of the month in which he or she completes 20 years commissioned service.

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion (COPY ATTACHED) that the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to major by the 1996 and 1997 RCSB’s.  He was released from active duty on 1 August 1993 and has not acquired an OER since his release.  Although a civilian education document was missing from his file it has been determined that its absence was immaterial to his nonselection and he could have corrected the error prior to the convening of the boards.  The failure to receive notice of convening of a selection board and the other documents he submitted are not a basis for reconsideration. and nonselected for not meeting the required military education requirement.  He recommended that the applicant’s request be disapproved.

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 the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration to major.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  His contention that his civilian and military education was not viewed by the promotion has been noted by the board.  However, the Board notes his military education was in fact viewed by the board.  It is further noted the applicant had the opportunity to submit a copy of his civilian education prior to the convening dates of the boards and he failed to do so.

3.  The Board also notes that the applicant has not received an OER since his release from active duty which may have caused his nonselections.  His nonselections by the 1996 and 1997 RCSB’s were not based on lack of the required military education. 

4.  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 working 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.  The applicant needed to insure, well in advance, that his record would present his career and qualifications to that board in the best possible light.  Promotion is not automatic, based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of an RCSB determining an individual’s potential and ability to perform at the higher grade.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-06560	
SUFFIX		
RECON	N/A	
DATE BOARDED	1998 October 7	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993 August 1	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	110.00	
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.