MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  7 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000045260

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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:  Correction to his promotion effective date for captain to 19 July 1997.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was selected by the 1996 Reserve Components Selection board in November 1996 (sic).  The results of the board were released on 9 July 1998 and he was promoted to captain 1 October 1998.  He feels his promotion was delayed by the Army’s transition from the Reserve Officer Personnel Act (ROPA) to the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA).  He submits copies of his promotion memorandum dated 7 May 1998, the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 promotion board results dated 9 July 1998, and a Federal recognition order dated 2 October 1998 in support of his request.

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

He was appointed in the Mississippi Army National Guard (MS ARNG) as a second lieutenant effective 9 August 1984 and promoted to first lieutenant effective 8 August 1987.

He resigned his commission effective 26 March 1990.

He enlisted in the MS ARNG in the rank of sergeant (E-5) effective 27 March 1990.

He was discharged from the MS ARNG effective 8 March 1995 in the rank of staff sergeant.

He was appointed in the MS ARNG as a first lieutenant effective 9 March 1995.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to captain by the FY 1996 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB), which convened on 14 November 1995.

On 1 June 1996, he requested promotion reconsideration for promotion to captain under 1996 criteria.  His request was denied and he was advised that his break in commissioned service from March 1990 to March 1995 might have been a factor in his nonselection.

He was considered and selected for promotion to captain by the Calendar Year 1996 RCSB, which convened on 12 November 1996.  The President approved the board on 12 June 1998 and the results were released on 9 July 1998.

There is no evidence to show when he was assigned to a captain’s position.

He was promoted to captain effective 1 October 1998.

The ROPMA was enacted effective 1 October 1996.  Among many other things, it required that second lieutenants (2LT’s) serve a maximum years of service in grade (MYIG) of 2 years before promotion to first lieutenant (1LT), and 1LT’s serve a MYIG of 5 years before promotion to captain.  The ROPA in effect prior to ROPMA required completion of 3 years as a 2LT and 4 years as a 1LT before promotion to captain.

The ROPMA promotion boards for captains were administratively delayed.  The Presidential approvals of the results of the pertinent promotion boards were also administratively delayed.  Based on normal processing, they should have been convened earlier and approved approximately 75 days after the respective convening dates.

The Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) acknowledged that pertinent Army agencies had agreed that the faulty promotion policy for promotion to captain should be revised, and that actions would be initiated for this purpose.  He further stated that affected individuals would be advised they could seek relief from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records which could adjust dates of rank for those who were first-time considered and selected for promotion to captain, after having served more than 7 combined MYIG as a lieutenant.  The applicant did not qualify for this program.

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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to adjustment to his effective date for promotion to captain.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  His contention that he feels his promotion was delayed has been noted by the board; however, the applicant was properly considered in 1996 and not selected.  He was advised that at the time of his consideration all pertinent documents were reviewed by the selection board to included OER’s, highest level of military and civilian education.  When his records were reviewed they did not contain material error and he had no basis for reconsideration by a special selection board.

3.  The Board further notes the applicant was selected for promotion at the time of his second consideration and assigned an appropriate date of rank and effective date.

4.  The Board also notes all officers will be considered for promotion in an active status and receive equal promotion consideration based on laws and regulations that mandate promotion consideration at specific times in their career.  As shown in this case, promotion is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of an RCSB determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade. Promotion and retention is keenly competitive, and many officers will not be selected.

5.  Implicit in the Army's promotion system is the universally accepted and frequently discussed principle that officers have a responsibility for their own careers.  The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications.  The applicant needed to insure, well in advance, that his record would present his career and qualifications in the best possible light. 

6.  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.

7.  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

__gp___  ___pm___  __mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045260	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
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.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.