MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           15 March 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046878

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy 		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:  In effect, reconsideration for promotion.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That upon requesting an active duty assignment, he was informed that he was ineligible because he had been nonselected for promotion on two occasions.  He had no idea that he had been eligible for promotion.

Because of the requirements of his civilian job, he transferred from the Alabama Army National Guard to the Army Reserve in 1996.  At that time he informed his career manager that he wanted to continue his military career at a later date.  His career manager informed him that he could be placed in an inactive status, that he would not be required to complete active duty assignments, professional development, and that he would not be eligible for promotion as long as he remained in an inactive status.  The Army could recall him to active duty at any time if the need arose.

The only contact that he then had with the Army was in updating his mailing address.  Upon learning that the Army needed AH-64 (Apache) pilots, he requested active duty, and consequently found out that his records went before a promotion board in 1997 and 1998.  He was not selected both times.  

He has been a warrant officer since October 1982 and has never once had even a marginal officer evaluation report (OER), and has always been recommended for promotion ahead of his peers.  In his last OER, both his senior rater and rater recommended that he be promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) immediately. 

Had he suspected the promotion board actions, he would have made sure his records were complete.  Since he was not informed of the reason for his non- selection, he assumes that it was because of no recent OER or photograph.  He states that his actions or lack of actions were due to misinformation and lack of communications between himself and his career manager.  He was not informed of board actions, and believed that he was in an inactive status where no promotion board action would occur.  Had he known, he would have reviewed his records prior to the board action.  It was unfair to not select him.  Because he was not informed of the results of the first promotion board, it was unjust to not select him the second time.  

His military career is important to him, and he does not want it to end looking like he is a substandard officer.  A review of his records will show he is a good officer. He was not selected for promotion because of inefficiency but because of a lack of communication that caused a current photograph and OER from being placed in his records.   

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1980 and completed training as a medical specialist.  He entered on active duty on 6 November 1981, completed the warrant officer candidate course at Fort Rucker, Alabama, and on                28 October 1982 was appointed a Reserve warrant officer with concurrent call to active duty.  He served with the 501st Aviation Battalion in Germany and with the 226th Attack Helicopter Battalion at Fort Rucker.  He was released from active duty in November 1987.  On 22 March 1988 the applicant was appointed a warrant officer in the Alabama Army National Guard.  He was promoted to CW3 effective on 30 July 1991.  On 1 May 1996 the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and transferred to the Army Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve) at St. Louis.  

The applicant’s records show that he completed numerous military courses, mainly in the aviation field, to include, aircraft maintenance officer course, pilot course, AH-1A qualification course, OH-58A/C aviation qualification course,     UH-60 aviation qualification course, and the aviation senior warrant officer course.

The applicant’s records show that he received 15 OERs during his military service, seven while on active duty, and eight while a member of the Army National Guard.  For the most part, his active duty raters stated that he always exceeded requirements and should be promoted ahead of his contemporaries.  However, on one occasion, his rater gave him three 2’s in the professional competence portion of the OER, stating that he had margin for growth in those areas; and on another occasion his rater stated that he usually exceeded requirements and should be promoted with his contemporaries.  He received five senior rater evaluations, one of which was above center of mass, two center of mass, and two below center of mass.

His National Guard raters also stated that he always exceeded requirements and should be promoted ahead of his contemporaries, with two exceptions.  His rater on one report stated that he always exceeded requirements, but should be promoted with his contemporaries.  His rater on another report stated that he usually exceeded requirement and should be promoted with his contemporaries. He received eight senior rater evaluations, the last one of which was above center of mass, six center of mass reports, and one below center of mass report.   
On 15 September 1997 the applicant was notified that he was not selected for promotion by an Army Reserve Components Mandatory Selection Board.  On   17 September 1998 he was again notified that he was not selected for promotion, and as a result of his second nonselection, his discharge was mandated, unless he was eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command at St. Louis.  That command indicated that the applicant’s record was complete when reviewed by the boards, and there was no basis for consideration by a DA Promotion Advisory Board.  It stated that failure to receive nonselect letters or notification that he was being considered by a promotion board was not a basis for consideration by a special selection board.  It stated that the boards saw his military education documents and all his evaluation reports.  It recommended that the applicant’s request be denied. 

On 10 January 2001 the applicant was furnished a copy of the advisory opinion for his information and possible rebuttal.  He failed to respond.

Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy and procedures used in the promotion of commissioned and warrant officers of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.  Paragraph 2-4 of that regulation states that to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade, an ARNGUS or USAR officer must be in an active status and meet the service requirements contained in the regulation.  Active status is defined as the status of an Army National Guard of the United States or Army Reserve soldier who is not in the inactive Army National Guard, in the Standby Reserve (Inactive List), or the Retired Reserve.  Soldiers assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) are in an active status.

Paragraph 3-14 provides for standby advisory boards formed to prevent any injustice to an officer or former officers who were eligible for promotion but whose records through error, were not submitted to a promotion selection board for consideration, or contained a material error when reviewed by the selection board.   

Army Regulation 140-10, chapter 7, provides for removal of soldiers from an active status, and states in pertinent part, that officers who are twice not selected for promotion to CW3, CW4, captain, major, and lieutenant colonel will be removed from an active status.  Soldiers will be either discharged or transferred to the Retired Reserve.  Transfer to the Retired Reserve is authorized when requested by soldiers who are eligible.

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  There is no error in the applicant’s records, and there is no injustice done the applicant.  His contention that he was not notified that he was eligible for promotion, and then when not selected, not notified of that nonselection is not reason for reconsideration for promotion, as noted in the advisory opinion from St. Louis.  His records were complete and were submitted to the boards.  There was no material error.

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

3.  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 that requirement.
 
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

___teo___  ___emw_  ___rtd___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046878	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010315	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.