MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:             21 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000036928

	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	
	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen 		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 he be promoted to the rank of captain.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his first application for a commission as a first lieutenant with concurrent call to active duty was lost in early 1951.  Several months later, after he had determined that his application had been lost, he reapplied.  Meanwhile, the program had been changed and the highest grade he could accept was second lieutenant.  Wanting to become an officer, he applied for the second lieutenant commission and was called to active duty as such on   2 September 1951.  He believes that he is entitled to the grade of captain for at least two reasons.  First, because he should have been called to active duty as a first lieutenant and secondly, he replaced a major and a first lieutenant at the finance office to which he was assigned at the time.

In support of his request, he included four letters of recommendation pointing out his qualifications for commissioned service.

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

He was born on 28 August 1918 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 June 1938.  He served in the Finance Corps as an enlisted soldier, a warrant officer and as a second and first lieutenant.  During his career, he maintained a dual status as a noncommissioned officer and commissioned officer on active duty and in the US Army Reserve (USAR).  He retired on 30 June 1960 in the grade of master sergeant (pay grade E-7) with 20 years, 11 months and 19 days service.  He was subsequently advanced to the grade of first lieutenant on the retired list on 2 July 1969 upon completion of 30 years combined active and retired list service.

On 14 May 1942 the applicant was discharged from active duty as a master sergeant to accept an appointment as a warrant officer in the Finance Corps.  He was again released from active duty in February 1946 but recalled in September 1946.  He requested and was released from active duty in March 1948 and in May 1948 reenlisted as a master sergeant in the Regular Army.  On 1 September 1949 he was appointed a second lieutenant (USAR).  On 8 June 1951, while serving on active duty as a master sergeant, he applied for extended active duty and on 2 September 1951 he was called to active duty as a second lieutenant.  On 14 August 1952 he was advanced to the grade of first lieutenant and on       27 August 1953 he was released from active duty at his own request.  On         13 November 1953 he reenlisted in the Regular Army in the grade of master sergeant and served until his retirement on 30 June 1960.

On 19 January 1954 the applicant’s request for active duty in his USAR grade of first lieutenant, Finance Corps, was denied.

On 8 March 1956 and 20 March 1957 he was considered but not selected for promotion to captain by a USAR promotion selection board.

The record contains no evidence of his application for active duty in the grade of first lieutenant, which he contends, was lost.

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 applicant’s contention that since his original application for extended active duty in the grade of first lieutenant had been lost he should be entitled to promotion to captain is inconsistent with the facts in the case.  The record shows that he was twice considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of captain in his USAR status.  It is pure speculation to suggest that had he been called to active duty as a first lieutenant instead of a second lieutenant the outcome of his promotion consideration would have been different.  In fact, both the USAR promotion board that did consider him and any active Army promotion board that would have considered him for promotion would have used the same files so there is no reason to believe that he would have been selected for captain by an active component promotion selection board.  

2.  His second reason for believing that he should be promoted to captain - because he replaced a major and a first lieutenant in the finance office to which he was assigned – is not a basis for officer promotions.  Officer promotions then, as now, are accomplished through a centralized selection process wherein an officer’s entire record is reviewed and a determination made as to his qualification for promotion.  While the fact that the officer may have performed in a higher-grade officer’s position may be reflected in the record, that fact alone is an insufficient basis for promotion.

3.  While the applicant’s military record reveals that through two wars and almost 22 years of service he was nothing less than a superb soldier, neither the information he has furnished nor the evidence in the available records provide an objective basis for granting his request for promotion to captain. 

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

__jhl ____  ___clg___  __ena______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036928	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
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.	129.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.