MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036099

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).

APPLICANT STATES:  That there were material deficiencies in his official military personnel file (OMPF) presented to the fiscal year 1999 (FY99) LTC selection board.  Superimposed images, poor document resolution and thick scratch markings are visible in all performance reports during the eleven-year period of 1983 until 1994.  All documents previous to 1994 are from the old micrographics/microfiche system and were copied to the Personnel Electronic Management System (PERMS) with significant quality control material deficiencies.  These deficiencies made his file difficult to read and some portions were unreadable.  Thus, the FY99 LTC board did not have before it some material information and could not properly vote on his file.

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

He entered active duty around January 1983 as an infantry officer.  He completed the Rotary Wing Aviator Course in February 1984 whereupon he was transferred to the Aviation Branch.  He was promoted to major on 1 October 1994.  The applicant’s records were seen by the FY99 LTC promotion selection board which convened on 2 March.  He was not selected for promotion.

The applicant’s officer evaluation report (OER) senior rater profile history is as follows (* indicates applicant’s rating under the 67-7 OER series):

OER Ending Period 	Senior Rater Profile

22 August 1994		7*/6/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
6 June 1995			8*/3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
(14 February 1996, Academic Evaluation Report, Command and General Staff Course – achieved course standards)
6 June 1996			7*/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
30 April 1997			2*/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
30 September 1997		1*/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0

(67-8 OER series)

7 May 1998			Center of Mass
25 December 1998		Center of Mass

The Board notes that the documents on the OMPF provided by the applicant dated prior to 1994 are of the poor quality described by him.  However, his OER history for the period prior to 1994 show that he was rated center of mass ten times, dual center-of-mass once, and above center of mass twice (both times as a first lieutenant).  Three academic evaluation reports show he achieved course standards.

On 25 August 1999, the applicant requested Special Selection Board (SSB) reconsideration for promotion to LTC based upon the poor quality of his OMPF.  On 22 September 1999, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotions Branch noted that they carefully reviewed his original OMPF microfiche, which was seen by the promotion board, and determined it was clear and legible.  The copy sent to him was a copy of the original microfiche and it would not be as clear as the original board microfiche due to a degradation of quality when it is reprocessed through the microfiche copier.  In the absence of a material error in his promotion file, his request was denied.

Army Regulation 600-8-29 governs the officer promotion function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part, it states that a SSB may be convened under Title 10, U. S. Code to reconsider commissioned officers for promotion when it is determined a board that considered the officer did not have before it material information.

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.  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.  The Board concludes there was no material error in the applicant’s records that would justify his reconsideration for promotion to LTC for two reasons.  First, PERSCOM reviewed his original OMPF microfiche, the one which was seen by the promotion board, and determined it was clear and legible.  The Board finds no reason to presume that PERSCOM is lying.  Second, the applicant’s OERs subsequent to 1994, about which he has no complaint and all except the first one noted above of which were for duties performed as a field grade officer, show that he was rated as a center-of-mass officer.  His OERs prior to 1994, while of a poor quality on the OMPF provided by him, still clearly show that he was rated as a center-of-mass officer during that prior period also.  Only two OERs, both received when he was a junior officer, rate him as above-center-of-mass.  The Board believes the promotion board gave primary weight of all considered officers to the types of and ratings of duties performed while field grade officers.  The Board believes that the promotion board had the integrity not to make a promotion decision based upon any “unreadabilty” of documents on any officer’s OMPF.

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

__rvo___  __eb____  __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036099	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.