MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            9 June 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999016724

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	MS. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 to colonel with an effective date and date of rank of 1 October 1992 with the back pay and allowances such a correction would necessitate, and retirement in the rank of colonel.  In the alternative he requests promotion reconsideration by a “selection process that is free of institutional racism and sexism.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Army officer promotion system uses an illegal quota system based on race and gender.  That quota system violated his constitutional right to equal protection and due process under the law, it violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it violated Department of Defense regulations and policies as regards equal opportunity and discrimination based on race or gender.

The applicant submits the instructions to the promotion board which establish minority goals in officer promotions, and directs that if the goals are not met that the promotion board is to reconsider the under represented minority group to determine whether there was inadvertent discrimination in the selection process.  He also submits copies of promotion board minority goals and actual selection rates and points to the parallel between the two and the explanations given by the promotion board when the goal isn’t met.

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

He entered on active duty on 30 July 1978 with 2 years, 2 months and 17 days of prior active service, and 4 years, 10 months and 3 days of prior service in the reserve not on extended active duty.

He served as a dental officer and was promoted to lieutenant colonel.  He was retired under the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA), at his own request, on 30 June 1995.  His awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER).  The DCSPER stated that the promotion board has minority goals, not quotas, and those goals are not required to be met.  The DCSPER opines that there was no discrimination based on race and gender goals in the promotion boards which failed to select the applicant for promotion.  The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given the opportunity to respond.  He did not submit any rebuttal to the DCSPER advisory opinion.

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.  The applicant is stating that the officer promotion board process is discriminatory against white males.  However, he has not submitted any evidence to support this contention or that a less qualified minority officer was selected for promotion over him.  Absent evidence of that nature, there is no reason to promote him as he has requested.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, the promotion board had minority goals, not quotas, and those goals were not mandatory.

3.  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

_eb_____  _rjw  ____  _jps_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016724	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990609	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.