MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 November 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046921

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Martha E. Schuler		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:  That his mandatory removal date (MRD) be changed from 25 June 1995 to 31 May 2002 and that he be reconsidered for promotion to colonel, O-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes his non-selection for promotion to colonel in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) stems from confusion over his MRD.  He was not sent the non-select letter or the invitation to resubmit his promotion package for consideration to the colonel selection board scheduled to convene 11 July 2000.  On 28 June 2000, he called his promotion manager in St. Louis, MO to inquire into his colonel select status.  He was then informed that he was nonselected.  His promotion manager told him he was not sent the nonselect letter and the invitation to resubmit for the July 2000 board because they were looking at an MRD of 25 June 1995 instead of his actual MRD of 31 May 2002. He was precluded from favorable consideration for promotion to colonel that convened 13 July 1999 because it failed to look at his new MRD of 31 May 2002. Moreover, he was denied the opportunity to review his microfiche and provide additional information to the 11 July 2000 selection board.  He is one of the very few officers in the entire Armed Forces with a doctorate.  Although affirmative action appears to be a thing of the past, the fact remains that very few Hispanics are promoted to colonel in the USAR and the National Guard.  He believes he is qualified for promotion and should be given retroactive consideration for promotion.  He provides a copy of a 2 February 1995 memorandum from the     U. S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) and an 8 July 2000 letter to the President of the Colonel Army Promotion List Selection Board as supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and U. S. Army Reserve (USAR), he was commissioned in the Army National Guard in 1980.  He transferred to the USAR in 1981.  

On 2 February 1995, USARC recalculated the applicant’s MRD in accordance with a policy change and determined his new MRD was 31 May 2002.  USARC stated that SIDPERS-USAR (the Reserve personnel data base system) had been changed to reflect the new MRD.  This recalculation was based upon the applicant’s request.

The applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel, O-5 in the Adjutant General’s Corps on 8 December 1995.

Any Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) the applicant may have received during the period 15 August 1995 through 15 September 1997 are missing from his performance fiche.

The applicant’s OER for the period ending September 1998 shows that he was rated below center of mass by his senior rater (5/16/*2/1/0/0/0/0/0; * indicating the applicant’s rating).  

Under the current OER system, the applicant’s OER for the period ending         31 March 1999 shows that he was rated as center of mass by his senior rater.  His rater rated his performance as “satisfactory performance, promote” (a middle rating, with the highest being “outstanding performance, must promote” and the lowest being “unsatisfactory performance, do not promote.”)  His senior rater rated his potential to the next higher grade as “fully qualified” (a middle rating, with the highest being “best qualified” and the lowest being “do not promote.”)

The applicant’s OER for the period ending 31 March 2000 shows that he was rated as center of mass by his senior rater.  His rater rated his performance as “outstanding performance, must promote.”  His senior rater rated his potential to the next higher grade as “best qualified.”

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policies used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the Army National Guard of the United States and commissioned and warrant officers of the USAR.  Paragraph 3-4 states that the Chief, National Guard Bureau and the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components will notify each ARNGUS and USAR officer in the zone of consideration by a mandatory selection board.  This notice will be dispatched at least 30 days before the convening date of the board.  A copy of the officer’s records to be reviewed by the selection board will accompany the notification.  Officers will be directed to review the records and submit copies of missing documents or other corrections and to submit an official photograph.  Lack of notification to an officer does not provide an independent basis for the officer to be considered by a standby board.  Paragraph 3-14 states that an officer will not be considered for promotion by a standby advisory board when an administrative error was immaterial or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or OMPF.  Paragraph 4-28 states that officers not found qualified for promotion will be sent a memorandum of nonselection, to include eligibility for further consideration while being retained in an active status.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 is intended as a professional development guide for individual officers of the United States Army.  In pertinent part, it states that officers in many respects are ultimately their own career managers.  The key is to be involved in career development by making informed logical decisions and acting on them.  One important element of an officer’s involvement is the accurate reflection of capabilities in the official military personnel files maintained by Headquarters, Department of the Army.  The OMPF, ORB and career management individual file (CMIF) contain the data from which important career development decisions are made for selection, advancement, assignment and retention.  Officers should review, update and maintain these records throughout their careers.  

On 8 November 2000, the Chief, Promotions and Notification Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components confirmed that the applicant had not been selected for promotion by the 1999 and the 2000 colonel promotion selection boards.  He stated that their records showed that the applicant’s MRD for both the 1999 and the 2000 boards showed his MRD as 2002.  It also showed that there was a different address listed for the 2000 board than there was for the 1999 board and that might account for his not receiving his nonselect letter.  His promotion packet for the 1999 board included a Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, provided by the applicant that showed his MRD as 29 June 1995.  Other corrections had been made on the DA Form 2-1 but no correction was made to the MRD.

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 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.

2.  The applicant was aware in 1995 that his MRD would be changed from June 1995 to May 2002.  Although the endorsement approving his request for the change stated that SIDPERS-USAR had been changed, as a senior commissioned officer it was his responsibility to review his records and ensure the change had actually been made.  

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant had provided a copy of his DA Form 2-1 with several corrections made on it to the 1999 colonel selection board.  That DA Form 2-1 shows his old MRD of June 1995 yet he did not make a pen and ink correction to that erroneous entry.  

4.  An “invitation” to submit a promotion package to a promotion board is not required by regulation.  When an officer is notified of the convening date of a promotion board, a copy of the officer’s records to be reviewed by the selection board will accompany the notification.  Officers are then directed to review the records and submit copies of missing documents or other corrections.  The applicant knew when the 1999 board convened.  As an Adjutant General’s Corps officer he should have known approximately when the results of that board would be released and he would have had access to the results of that board well before his June 2000 call to his promotion manager.  He would have had sufficient time to prepare another promotion packet.  The Board agrees with the regulation that lack of notification is an insufficient reason for him to be considered by a standby board.

5.  The Board concludes that had the applicant exercised reasonable diligence he could have discovered and corrected the erroneous MRD in time for promotion board consideration.  His failure to do so is also an insufficient reason for him to be considered by a standby board.

6.  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.

NOTE: The Army Review Boards Agency, Support Division, will be directed to administratively correct the applicant’s records to show his MRD as 31 May 2002.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wtm___  __jea___  __mes___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046921	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001116	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.