MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  24 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000042943

	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, Army Review Boards Agency	
	Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		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 previous application to correct his records by, in effect, providing a most favorable Officer Evaluation Report (OER) in lieu of one which has been deleted by this Board.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was first denied promotion because of a very adverse OER.  He now contends he was “set up” by this Board for an adverse selection when he was referred to his third selection board with a “nonrated” period whch gave the selection board a negative spin or connotation to his military service record.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 19 January 2000 (COPY ATTACHED).

On 18 May 2000, the applicant indicates that he was “set up” by this Board because it directed his adverse OER be expunged and the period be declared as “nonrated”.  He now contends the period of nonrated time created a negative spin or connotation to his military service record.

He was reconsidered but not selected 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.  There is no justification to replace one OER with another OER. The contested OER was deleted from the record, and a statement of nonrated time was properly placed in the record.  The applicant has also not shown he did not receive proper promotion reconsideration.

2.  The usage of the term “nonrated” is not a negative statement.  It is an objective statement to show no fault of the individual concerned.  It is used for all officers with a nonrated period.

3.  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.

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

__mp___  __jm___  ___ec_____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042943	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001024	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.100	oer	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.