MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           19 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022790

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 she be reconsidered for promotion to the rank of major by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB).

APPLICANT STATES:  That her promotion packet was not submitted because she was advised that if she failed to complete the Combined Arms and Services Staff Course (CAS3) prior to board consideration, she would be wasting her time submitting the packet.  She further states that she completed the officer advanced course and that as of the date of her application to this Board, she is enrolled in the CAS3.  She states that the notification of promotion status was not mailed to her until 12 January 1998 with a deadline for reconsideration of 2 February 1998.  In support of her appeal, she submits a copy of her Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course Diploma.

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

On 4 June 1983, she accepted an appointment as a second lieutenant (2LT) in the USAR.  She was promoted to the rank of captain on 29 April 1989.

On 9 June 1996, the applicant was notified by the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that she had been considered for promotion to major 
(O4) by the Department of the Army (DA) Reserve Component Selection Board.  She was informed that she was not recommended for promotion.

She was notified by the PERSCOM on 6 June 1997, and again informed that she was considered for promotion to major by the DA Reserve Component Selection Board.  She was again not recommended for promotion and she was told that, as a result of being twice nonselelected, she must be discharged unless she requested to be transferred to the Retired Reserve.

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the PERSCOM.  The PERSCOM opined that the applicant’s Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course was considered when her record was reviewed by the selection board and that the CAS3 was waived for all officers for the 1997 selection board.  The PERSCOM further opined that her Officers Evaluation Reports were current at the time her records were reviewed and that educational qualifications were not the basis of her nonselection.  The PERSCOM concluded by opining that the applicant does not have a basis for consideration by a DA Special Selection Board and recommended that her request be disapproved.

The opinion was provided to the applicant for a response and to date no response has been received by the Board.

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 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 also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for nonselection, except if an individual is not qualified for noncompletion of required military schooling.  

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 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.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s records were up to date and that they were properly reviewed by the appropriate selection board.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the applicant promotion reconsideration.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  Although selection boards normally do not divulge the basis for nonselection, when it involves educational qualification or a lack thereof, officers are notified of such disqualifications.  Inasmuch as the applicant met the educational qualifications for promotion and since her records appear to have been current and correct, there appears to be no basis to grant her promotion reconsideration simply because she thought she was wasting her time due to her not having completed additional education.  In any event, the failure of the part of an officer to submit a promotion packet to a selection Board that has reviewed their records does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice on the part of the Department. 

4.  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

___cmf__  ___cla___  __mm___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022790	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/08/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.0000	
2.  311	131.0100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.