MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            7 September 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035611

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adoplhi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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:  In effect, that he be considered for promotion to major by a standby selection board (SSB).

APPLICANT STATES:  He believes there was “undue bias because of the type of company commands” he had.  He notes that he is branch qualified, has had “two very successful company commands” and that his branch, Military Intelligence, is “one of the toughest branches to get a command in….”  The applicant states that the overall selection rate to major in FY99 was 78 percent and that in the Military Intelligence Branch the selection rate was 68 percent.  He notes that he finds “it hard to believe [that he was] not at least in the 68%.”

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

He initially entered active duty in November 1988 after being commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve second lieutenant in July 1988 following completion of a Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Arizona State University.  

The applicant successfully completed the Armor Officer Basic Course in 1989 and was promoted to the grade of captain in April 1993.  He attended the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course in 1994.

The applicant was consistently rated as a center of mass officer on his performance evaluation reports until his first rating as a company commander for the period 23 July 1995 through 22 July 1996.  Beginning with that report and on his two subsequent “command” reports, which would have been seen by the FY99 major selection board, he was rated above the center of mass. His initial “command” report noted that he “continually tries to learn from honest mistakes” and described him as a “solid” training company commander.  That same report noted that “with additional command and staff experience, his dedication, energy and detailed professional knowledge will form a solid base for continued development and progression.”  His next “command” report noted that he had “grown, matured and developed into one of the very best company commanders in my brigade.”  His next “command” report, which was associated with his command of a recruiting company indicated that he “hit the ground running” and his company was “improving in nearly every measurable category.”  That report noted that he was “an outstanding company commander.”

His most recent performance evaluation report, for the period 1 October 1998 through 8 June 1999 was by far his best evaluation report.  The report noted that he was “the best company commander in the Columbia Battalion and is in the top 10 of 50 commanders in the brigade.”  His senior rater rated him above center of mass in that report.

The applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion to major by the FY99 major promotion board which concluded on 19 May 1999.
An advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) provided by the Chief, Promotions Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command, recommended the applicant’s request for promotion reconsideration be denied.  It noted that “promotion reconsideration is approved only for nonselected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board.”

In response to the advisory opinion the applicant noted that while the opinion recommended denial based on the absence of “material error” he contends that his non-selection was “an injustice.”  He cites published statistics regarding promotion selection rates and expands on his initial application by stating again that he “can not imagine that [he is] considered to be part of the lowest 32% of military intelligence officers or the lowest 22% of all Army officers in [his] year group.”

The applicant was selected for promotion to major by the FY00 board.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by the FY99 major selection board.  The applicant’s contention that an injustice occurred is not a sufficient basis to grant promotion reconsideration.  

2.  The applicant’s records indicate he was a good soldier who was, with the exception of his most recent performance appraisals, rated as a center of mass officer.  The Board notes that what appears to be his strongest evaluation report (981001-990608) would not have been seen by the FY99 promotion selection board.

3.  While the Board sympathizes with the applicant’s non-selection for promotion there is no evidence indicating that an error or injustice occurred.  The applicant’s record was considered for promotion, along with his contemporaries, and he was not selected.  The Board notes that not all officers considered for promotion are, or can be, selected for promotion.  The fact that he was not selected is not evidence of an injustice and the Board notes that an officer’s overall record is considered for promotion not merely one’s success or failure in command positions.

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 that 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

___cla_____  _wtm_______  __tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035611	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.