MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 October 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-08093

	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. 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:  That his records from service in the Ohio Army National Guard (ARNG) be placed in his permanent file and promotion file and that he be reconsidered for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3).

APPLICANT STATES:  He was informed that his promotion packet did not include any records from his service in the Ohio ARNG and it is likely he was passed over because his records were incomplete.  He further states that he is attempting to regain active status in the Ohio ARNG.

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

He was appointed in the Reserve from ROTC as a second lieutenant effective 12 June 1987.  

He was appointed in the Ohio ARNG effective 18 April 1989.  He was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) 11 June 1990.

His record shows while serving in the rank of 1LT he received an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 18 April through 5 August 1991.

In a memorandum dated 18 November 1991, the OER for the period 18 April through 5 August 1991 was noted as adverse and referred to the applicant for acknowledgment and rebuttal.  He was invited to submit comments by the 30 November 1991 suspense date.  

There is no record that he responded to the referred OER by the suspense date.

He was reappointed in the NG as a CW2 effective 6 August 1991.  On 1 August 1992 he was separated and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

He did not receive any OER’s during this service.

He was considered but nonselected for promotion to CW3 by the 1996 and 1997 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s).  The reason(s) was not divulged by the boards except that it was not for a lack of military education.  His records were complete and without material error when reviewed by the RCSB’s.

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 Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotion, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion (COPY ATTACHED) that the applicant does not have a basis for reconsideration under the 1996 or 1997 criteria as his file was complete when it was viewed by both boards.  According to the NGB and the Ohio ARNG, there were no OER’s rendered as a warrant officer.  The applicant transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) on 1 August 1992 and has had no participation.  Based on the facts presented, 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 CW3.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  His contentions have been noted; however, he has not shown error, injustice or inequity in his case.  The Board also notes that pursuit of a Reserve career as a citizen-soldier requires discipline and sacrifice.  All Reserve officers have the same opportunity and challenges to both actively participate in the Reserve as a soldier, and to pursue their interests and demands as a civilian.  In this case, the applicant failed to maintain an active Reserve status since his appointment to warrant officer.  He knew, or should have known, that promotion is not automatic, and that failure to participate and advance would lead to discharge.  He can not now expect to regain entry in the service without participation and having a competitive record for promotion to CW3.

3.  He is clearly not competitive for promotion without active participation in the Reserve and without OER’s.  All officers are considered for promotion to the higher grade based on qualifications and potential.

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

RVC____  KAK____   LE_____    DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director