MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-06562

	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. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  That his nonselection by the 1996 Colonel Promotion Board be removed from his records.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of his selection in 1995 he had command of the one of the largest units in the Department of Defense and was forced to decline the promotion.  He further states he understood his promotion declination would be good for 1 year and within six months his file went before the next promotion board and he was not selected.  He hopes a review of the time period justifies his request.  He submits a copy of his promotion letter in support of his claim.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel supports the contentions of the applicant, but furnishes no evidence beyond that of record.

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

He was commissioned in the Ohio Army National Guard, with prior enlisted service, as a second lieutenant effective 4 August 1970.  He was appointed in the Reserve in the same rank effective 15 October 1970.  He attained the rank of lieutenant colonel effective 2 October 1991.

He was considered and selected for promotion to colonel by the 1995 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB), which convened on 18 July 1995.

On 16 October 1995, he was notified of his selection and effective date of promotion of 1 October 1996.

On 30 November 1995, he elected to decline the promotion for 1 year.  He also acknowledged he understood that in his declining the promotion his name would be removed from the list and this declination would not prevent him from being considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a subsequent promotion board.

On the same date his declination of promotion was approved until 1 October 1996.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to colonel by the 1996 RCSB, which convened on 16 July 1996.

He was separated from the Ohio ARNG on 7 November 1996 based on maximum service, and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that ARNGUS or USAR commissioned officers selected for promotion to the next higher grade of colonel may decline the promotion for a period not to exceed 1 year.  This period will be computed from the date of the promotion notice or the date the officer completed the service requirements.  The regulation further specifies that the names of officers selected for promotion to colonel will be removed from the promotion list and they will be considered by the next appropriate selection board provided they remain eligible.

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotion, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion (COPY ATTACHED) that the applicant was considered and recommended by the 1995 RCSB.  Information received in their office indicated the applicant was notified on 30 November 1995 of his options reference acceptance or declination of promotion.  The applicant responded by endorsement in December 1995, indicating he declined the promotion and understood this declination would not prevent him from being considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a subsequent promotion board.  The applicant was considered and not selected by the 1996 RCSB.  All critical elements were present in the board consideration file.  Based on the facts presented, he recommended that 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(s), it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to removal of his nonselection to colonel by the 1996 RCSB.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  His contention that his declination was good for 1 year and he was considered within 6 months has been noted by the board.  However, he was properly considered by the appropriate selection board that convened on 16 July 1996.  The Board further notes, he was not eligible for consideration by the 1997 colonel promotion board which convened on 15 July 1997, and subsequent to his 1 year period of declination.

3.  His record was complete and without material error when reviewed by the 1996 RCSB and he received fair consideration for promotion to colonel. 

4.  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.

5.  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	AC98-06562	
SUFFIX		
RECON	N/A	
DATE BOARDED	1999 January 13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967 April 1	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.