MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  1 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046036

	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. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  Adjustment to her date of rank (DOR) for major.

APPLICANT STATES:  That her erroneous DOR resulted from the Reserve of the Army Promotion policy implementing the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) and her DOR should be adjusted from 27 August 1997 to 24 July 1996, her initial promotion eligibility date (PED).

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

She was appointed in the Reserve from ROTC as a second lieutenant effective 30 July 1983.  She attained the rank of captain effective 29 July 1989. 

Based on the required 7 years time in grade her PED for major was 28 July 1996.

She was considered and not selected for promotion to major by the 1996 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB).  She was not qualified for promotion based on the lack of the required military education.  Her PED was adjusted to 28 July 1997.

The applicant furnished documentation to show completion of the officer advanced course on 1 September 1992 and the Combined Arms Staff and Service School on 5 August 1995.

She was reconsidered and not recommended for promotion by a special selection board (SSB) under 1996 criteria. 

She was reconsidered and selected for promotion to major by the 1997 RCSB which recessed on 11 April 1997.  The President approved the results of the board on 27 August 1997.

A Promotion Memorandum dated 2 October 1997 was issued to the applicant showing her DOR for major as 27 August 1997.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that upon a non-selection by an RCSB, an individual’s PED will be adjusted by 1 year accordingly.

The ROPMA, a public law enacted by Congress on 5 October 1994, prescribes the policies and procedures to consolidate and modernize the laws that govern Reserve component officers.  The law became effective 1 October 1996.  ROPMA provides that in order to be eligible for promotion to major the MTIG for a captain is 7 years, and that an officer selected for the first time for promotion to the next higher grade may be promoted on or before the date that he/she completed the maximum service. 
Title 10, United States Code, chapter 1405, provides for promotion of officers selected for the first time by an RCSB at any time on or before their maximum time in grade date.

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that the applicant was considered and not recommended for promotion to major by the 1996 RCSB because her education was not a matter of record.  Her PED was adjusted to 28 July 1997 based on the one passover for promotion.  The applicant furnished documentation showing completion of the required education and therefore had a basis for reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB).  She was considered and not selected by the SSB.  She was again considered and selected for promotion by the 1997 RCSB.  The President approved the results of the board on 27 August 1997 and under ROPMA an officer cannot be promoted until the President of the United States has approved the board.  She was issued a promotion memorandum on 2 October 1997 with a date of rank of 27 August 1997 since this was the day the President approved the board.  Based on this information, it was recommended her request be denied.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for rebuttal on 25 October 2000.  She did not respond.

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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to adjustment to her DOR for major to 24 July 1996, her initial PED.  Her DOR was not a result of ROPMA.  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.

2.  The Board has noted her contention that the ROPMA resulted in her receiving an erroneous DOR; however, the applicant’s first passover adjusted her PED by one year from 28 July 1996 to 28 July 1997.  She then was selected for promotion on her second board and given a date of rank of 27 August 1997, the date the President approved the board.  Her non-selection by the 1996 RCSB caused the adjustment to her initial DOR.

3.  The Board further notes that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to major by a SSB under 1996 criteria and had the applicant been selected by this board she would then have had a basis for adjustment to her DOR.  She was not selected by the SSB.  

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

__jk___  ___cg___  __rd______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046036	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010301	
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.