MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  30 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000037936

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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:  Reconsideration for promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4).

APPLICANT STATES:  His Officer Record Brief (ORB) that was seen by the FY99 promotion selection board had an error on it concerning his civilian education.  Prior to the promotion board he provided his career manager a copy of his school transcript and his baccalaureate (BS) certificate to update his files.  In October 1999 he was provided an updated copy of his ORB and it still did not show his BS degree.  His career manager informed him that the information was in his official file but the ORB had not been updated.  The career manager wrote a letter of support for promotion reconsideration based on this error.  The Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denied the applicant’s reconsideration based on an incomplete and inaccurate review of the circumstances.

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

He is serving on active duty as an aviation warrant officer in pay grade CW3.  He was promoted to pay grade CW3 effective 1 October 1993.  The FY99 CW3/4/5 Promotion Selection Board, which adjourned on 28 May 1999, did not select him for promotion to pay grade CW4.

A copy of the ORB that was seen by that board shows, in Section VII (civilian education), that he had completed an associate degree.  Directly below that line the ORB shows that he received a BS degree in engineering in 1994.  The next line shows his associate degree received in 1988.  The applicant authenticated the ORB with his signature on 15 March 1999.

In October 1999 the applicant requested reconsideration for promotion based on the error on the first line of his ORB showing an associate degree.  He also said his records should have shown that he was working on a masters degree.  His appeal included a letter of support from the Warrant Officer Division, Aviation Branch Chief.  The letter acknowledged that he had received evidence of the applicant’s BS degree but the ORB, on line one, had not been corrected.  The letter also stated that a careful examination of the applicant’s file should be conducted to determine if material error might have contributed to his non-selection.

His request for promotion reconsideration was denied by the promotions branch of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) based on a determination by the OSRB.  The OSRB noted that the applicant had signed the board ORB and that the career branch had made two “pen and ink” changes.  The date of his last evaluation report was updated as well as the date of his last photograph.  The OSRB also noted that the second line of his civilian education level showed that he had received a BS degree in 1994 even though the first line stated Associate.
The OSRB also notes the professional development goals as outlined in DA Pamphlet 600-11.  It states that the civilian education goal for all warrant officers is attainment of an associate degree.  The OSRB analysis of the selection rate of a maximum of 88 aviation warrant officers shows that less than 27 percent were selected of those considered and only 35 percent of those selected had a BS or higher degree.  The OSRB did not believe that a one line entry of Associate, followed by a clear entry showing his BS degree, was a material error that clearly disadvantaged the applicant before the board that viewed his file and did not adversely effect his promotion file.

The applicant believes that the OSRB review was flawed because they did not speak to the warrant officer that he had given his BS degree documents to even though a letter from him was provided with his request.  The applicant also states that only 19 percent of warrant officers who had an associate degree were promoted while 35 percent of those with a BS were promoted.

A review of the applicant’s officer evaluation report (OER) history shows that he has two below center of mass ratings, twelve, center of mass ratings, and three above center of mass ratings.

Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the policy for officer promotions including special selection boards (SSB) for promotion reconsideration.  It states that an officer will not be considered for promotion by an SSB when it is determined that the officer failed to notify the previous promotion board in writing, prior to the convening date, of possible administrative deficiencies.  It also states that an SSB is not appropriate when an administrative error was determined to not be material to the selection process.

The Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) provided to the FY99 CW3/4/5 Promotion Selection Board contained instructions on reviewing available records of the officers to be considered.  The board is directed to review the entire record, with no single factor as overriding.  The decision of the board is to be weighted in terms of each officer’s demonstrated character and performance and the potential for further service.  Six major areas are listed for review, including the appropriateness and extent of civilian education and training.

The applicant was considered again for promotion to CW4 by the FY00 CW3/4/5 Promotion Selection Board with the correct civilian education level documented on his ORB.  He was again non-selected.

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, it is concluded:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that his ORB contained material error sufficient to cause his non-selection for promotion. While the annotation of the word “Associate” was an administrative error, his ORB also clearly showed that he had completed his BS degree in 1994.

2.  The applicant had the opportunity to notify the promotion board in writing that he had completed his BS degree and was enrolled in a masters degree program, but chose not to do so.  A letter to the board was his only way to inform them about the masters program since it had not been completed.

3.  It is just as likely that the board, after a complete review of his record and manner of performance, felt he was not as competitive for promotion as those of his 88 out of 331 contemporaries that were selected for promotion.

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 this 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

__js___  ___tl_____  ___ca____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037936	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131011	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.