MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  7 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027036

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		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 captain.

APPLICANT STATES:  At the time the USAR Captain promotion board met in November 1998, he did not have his college degree.  This requirement was satisfied in December 1998 and he recently received his college diploma.  He submits an undated memorandum from Regents College, Director of Military Education, a copy of his diploma and college transcript in support of his request.

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

He was appointed in the Montana Army National Guard, Armor Branch as a second lieutenant effective 30 June 1990.  He was promoted to first lieutenant effective 30 June 1993.

Based on the required 4 years time in grade his promotion eligibility date for captain was 29 June 1997.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to captain by the 1997 and 1998 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s), which convened on 12 November 1997 and 17 November 1998, respectively.  He was not qualified for promotion based on the lack of the required civilian education.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) 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 regulation also provides that boards 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 education.

The regulation provides that in order to be qualified for promotion to captain, an individual must have completed 4 years of time in grade as a first lieutenant, and a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree on or before the convening date of the respective promotion board.  

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotion, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that the applicant was not educationally qualified when considered by the 1997 and 1998 RCSB’s.  The 1998 board convened on 

17 November 1998 and he completed the required education on 16 April 1999.  Since the completion date is after the convening date of the 1998 selection board the applicant does not have a basis for SSB consideration.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 20 April 2000.  He did not respond.

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 promotion reconsideration to captain by an SSB.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The Board has noted his contention that the education requirement was satisfied in December 1998; however, the applicant was not awarded his degree until 16 April 1999, after the 1998 selection board met.  It is further noted that he did not complete his highest civilian education until after both the 1997 and 1998 boards recessed.  

3.  The Board further notes that the applicant knew or should have known that completion of a BA has been a standing regulatory requirement since 1994.  The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates, promotion zones, and educational requirements 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.

4.  Pertinent regulations specify that an officer must meet the civilian education requirement prior to the convening date of the board.  The regulation does not provide provisions for waving civilian education.

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 this 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

__MP____  ___JS__  ___EC___  DENY APPLICATION

		       Carl W. S. Chun
	                                        Director, Army Board for Correction
	                                                      of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027036	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.