MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           31 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039636

	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. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		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 of his earlier appeal to correct his records by reconsidering him for promotion to captain. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect,  that the previous Board reached the wrong decision.  He believes that his record was incomplete through no fault of his own and that he is entitled to reconsideration.   In support of his case, he submits a memorandum to the Board from a major general. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 15 February 2000 (COPY ATTACHED).

The major general’s memorandum to the Board constitutes new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The general writes that, through no fault of the applicant’s, the academic evaluation report (AER) and up-dated and signed officer record brief (ORB) were missing from his record.  The general contends that the missing AER put the applicant at a material disadvantage.  The general believes that an unsigned ORB, alone, might prejudice the applicant’s selection because it would be interpreted as indicating that the individual officer did not care about his record.  He concludes by stating that the applicant is a valuable asset to the command and that reconsideration of his promotion is in the best interest of the Army.  

Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of officers on active duty.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration due to administrative error, the fact that action by a previous board was contrary to law, or because material error existed in the record 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.

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 governing regulation requires the decision maker to decide whether or not an error was material.  The members of this panel of the Board take note of 

the applicant’s arguments and the general’s opinion and recommendation.  However, they specifically agree with the members of the previous panel.  Inasmuch as the applicant’s record reflected that he was a center of mass officer, the AER, which was also unexceptional, would have added nothing.  The errors in the applicant’s record were not material and reconsideration is not warranted.  
 
2.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__SAC __  ___BJE_  __JRS_ __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	2000039636	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000831	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.