MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           30 January 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047275

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi 		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APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge from the Army National Guard be rescinded, that he be reenrolled in Phase Two of the Chaplain Officer Advanced Course and that he be reconsidered for promotion to major after completion of this officer advanced course.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was denied enrollment in the Resident Phase of the Chaplain Officer Advanced Course in September 1997 for failure to meet height/weight standards.  As a result, he was not promotable to major and could not remain in the service.  He contends that two students in this course did not meet the height/weight standards due to medical reasons.  However, an active duty captain was retained in the course and the applicant was denied enrollment and sent home.  He states that the active duty captain was given preferential treatment by the school manager and also received assistance in obtaining military forms for his physical condition.  Yet, the applicant was not given the same consideration.  The applicant contends that he had a temporary medical condition that prevented him from meeting the weight standards at the time of his enrollment.  In support of his application, he submits a Chronology of Events which describes his enclosures.
     
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant was inducted on 7 November 1966.  He served as an armor intelligence specialist in Vietnam from 14 October 1967 until he was wounded in action on 31 January 1968.  The applicant was honorably released on 
26 December 1968.  He enlisted in the USAR on 27 December 1968 and was honorably discharged on 6 November 1972.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 5 October 1981 and was honorably discharged on 6 February 1987.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve officer in the Chaplain Corps on 7 February 1987 and was promoted to captain on 22 May 1989.    

The applicant was considered, but was not selected, for promotion to major by the 1997 Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB) because he did not meet military education requirements.  He was notified of this nonselection by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Memorandum dated 23 June 1997.  

Orders dated 17 July 1997 assigned the applicant to Fort Jackson to attend Phase Two of the Chaplain Officer Advanced Course during the period
7 September 1997 to 19 September 1997.  Records show that the applicant failed to meet Army weight standards (overweight by 47 pounds) prior to his attendance and was disenrolled from this course on 8 September 1997 and returned to his unit.    

The applicant was subsequently considered for promotion to major by the 1998 RCSB, but was not selected.  The applicant was notified of his second nonselection by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Memorandum dated
20 August 1998.

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army National Guard on 15 August 1999. 

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  The regulation provides that mandatory selection boards will be convened each year to consider Army Reserve Officers in an active status for promotion to captain through lieutenant colonel.  The regulation provides that in order to be qualified for promotion to major an individual must have completed 7 years of time in grade as a captain and an officer advanced course on or before the convening date of the respective promotion board; and that upon a nonselection by a promotion board an individual's promotion eligibility date will be adjusted by one year, accordingly; and that individuals will receive mandatory promotion consideration prior to their promotion eligibility dates so that, if selected, they may be promoted on their future promotion eligibility date.

In pertinent part, Army Regulation 135-155 states that an officer who twice fails to be selected for promotion to captain, major and lieutenant colonel will not again be considered for promotion and will be removed from an active status.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual's nonselection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for nonselection, except where an individual is not qualified due to noncompletion of required military schooling.

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.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions pertaining to the “preferential treatment” given to the active duty captain by the school manager at 

the Resident Phase of the Chaplain Officer Advanced Course.  However, the applicant did not provide any evidence of record to support these contentions. 

2.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was considered for promotion to major in March 1997 by the 1997 RCSB and was not selected because he did not meet military education requirements.

3.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant did not meet the Army weight standards at the time of his enrollment in Phase Two of the Chaplain Officer Advanced Course in September 1997 and was returned to his unit.  Therefore, the applicant did not complete this officer advanced course and was not military education qualified prior to the convening of the next promotion board, which considered him for major, as required in regulation.

4.  The applicant was properly considered for promotion by the 1998 RCSB for promotion to major and was not selected.  As a result, he was properly discharged as required by regulation.

5.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, that a material error existed in the promotion file considered by the 1997 and 1998 RCSB’s.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration.

6.  Since the applicant was properly discharged after two-time nonselection for promotion to major and there is no evidence that the applicant is entitled to promotion reconsideration, his discharge orders will not be rescinded and he is, therefore, not entitled to enrollment in a future Chaplain Officer Advanced Course.  

7.  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.

8.  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

AAO____  BFH_____  TEO____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047275	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990815	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NGR 635-100  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	129.0000	
2.	100.0700	
3.	131.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.