MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           19 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041187

	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. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser 		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson 		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 extending his warrant officer service by 9 days so that he will have 18 years of service and be guaranteed retirement, by reinstating him to active duty as a chief warrant officer two (CW2) and by reconsidering him for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) by a special selection board. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he believes that it was unfair to him that the time in grade requirements were changed which deprived him of a below zone consideration for promotion.  He notes that his year group received a total of only two considerations whereas subsequent year groups received a total of three considerations.  He also maintains that his year group was mismanaged because the total number of individuals exceeded requirements.  He believes that the internal routing form from the Retirements and Separations Branch, Total Army Personnel Command should be attached to his request.  He contends that its removal was improper and disrespectful to the senior officers who signed it.  He states “this form did not go through the whole system at DA, but was diverted to the ABCMRI think it should go back through them to follow its full route, then if rejected, be again reconsidered by the ABCMR, who should consider the routing memo as part of the package.”  The applicant also contends that the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) determination that the removal of his initial evaluation as a warrant officer was not material and that he was not entitled to promotion reconsideration was erroneous and unjust.

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

The applicant’s submission is a new argument that requires Board consideration.

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 non-consideration 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 non-selection 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.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection.

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 changes in policy cited by the applicant affected every individual in his year group and are considered reasonable force management tools.  They do not demonstrate that the applicant suffered an injustice. 
 
2.  The OSRB had the authority and responsibility to determine whether the change made to the applicant’s record corrected a material error.  This Board concurs with the OSRB determination that it did not.

3.  As noted in the previous MOC the Retirements and Separations Branch internal routing form was withdrawn from consideration by the signatory because it was not intended for external circulation. 

4.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041187	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.