MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000049447

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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 he be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the FY 1997 Lieutenant Colonel, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his former senior rater (SR) wrote a memorandum to clarify his senior rating of the applicant for an officer evaluation report (OER) for the period 1 February 1993 through 31 January 1994.  The memorandum was mailed to the applicant in Bosnia and to the promotion board.  The applicant provided a memorandum to the promotion board requesting that the memorandum from his SR be included in his promotion file.  He was not selected for promotion.  In May 2000, the applicant requested a copy of his promotion folder and found that only his memorandum was viewed by the board.  He requested promotion reconsideration based on material error.  The Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotions Branch denied his request based on regularity requirements.

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

At the time of the FY 1997 Lieutenant Colonel, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board the applicant was a major with a date of rank of 1 May 1993.  He was assigned as the comptroller for an infantry division.

On 28 January 1997 the applicant’s former SR wrote a memorandum to clarify his senior rating of the applicant on 31 January 1994 as an armor battalion operations officer.  The SR wrote that he had just restarted his SR profile for majors and the applicant was the second major he rated.  He had placed the first major in the first block for potential because he was judged the best major in the brigade and destined to become a brigade commander.  He placed the applicant in the second block to show that he was a highly capable officer, but less capable than the first major, and to establish his second block as his center of mass.  He judged the applicant to be third of the eight majors he senior rated.

The SR provided this memorandum to the applicant and to the PERSCOM promotions branch.  On 4 February 1997 the applicant wrote a memorandum to the president of the promotion board requesting that the memorandum from his SR be added to his promotion file.  The applicant sent this memorandum via fax from Bosnia.

The applicant was notified in August 1997 that he was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  Promotion file records at PERSCOM show that the applicant provided an approved award for addition to his promotion file for the 
FY 1998 board but did not request addition of the 1997 memorandum from his SR.  The applicant was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 
FY 1998 Lieutenant Colonel, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board but was selected for continuation through 24 years of active service as a major.

During June 2000 the applicant reviewed a copy of his 1997 promotion file and discovered that his memorandum to the board had been present but the memorandum from his SR had not been placed in his file.  In July 2000 the applicant forwarded a request for promotion reconsideration under the 1997 criteria based on material error.  On 28 August 2000 the PERSCOM, Chief, Promotions Branch denied his request for promotion reconsideration.  The basis for denial was the specific wording in Army Regulation 600-8-29 that provides officer promotion policy.  Paragraph 1-33c(3) provides that officers under consideration for promotion may write to the board and provide documents and information they consider important in their promotion consideration.  Memorandums will not be filed in the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) but will be maintained with the records of the board.  Additionally, in paragraph (4) (b) of the regulation, it states that memorandums provided directly to the board by other parties will not be given to the board except when provided as an enclosure to a memorandum from the officer being considered.  Since the memorandum from the SR had been sent directly to the board and was not provided by the applicant as an enclosure to his memorandum, it was not eligible to be seen by the board.

Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the policy for officer promotions including the policy for special selection boards (SSBs).  One of the reasons for promotion reconsideration by a SSB is that the board that considered an officer for promotion did not have before it some material information.  As a matter of policy, material error is one that, had it been corrected prior to the time the officer was considered by the board, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the officer would have been recommended for promotion.  Reconsideration may be warranted based on the nature of the inaccuracy, the officers overall record, and the selection rate for the officer’s category.

A review of the OER in question shows that it was an annual report covering a 12 month period.  The rater marked the applicant with all 1s in Part IVa, (professional competence) and made six positive remarks about his professional ethics.  The rater placed him in the top block for performance and promotion potential with positive comments for selection for resident service school and promotion.

The SR placed the applicant in the second block, with one officer in the first block, for a total of two officers senior rated.  The SR included a host of positive comments such as “superb officer … competent, smart, and totally dedicated … great potential for serving in positions of increasing responsibility.  Select for resident CGSC and promotion.”

A review of the remainder of the applicant’s OER history shows a total of 
26 OERs.  One is a below center of mass report, 19 are center of mass reports, and 6 are above center of mass reports.  Included in his center of mass reports are his 1 year as a tank company commander and one 8 month report as a tank battalion headquarters company commander.  He completed Command and General Staff College by correspondence when he was not selected for the resident course.  Overall, his file could be viewed as a center of mass file.

In the briefing to officer promotion boards by the PERSCOM, Evaluations System Office, the board members are provided a 1 hour presentation on the type of OERs they will be reviewing.  In that presentation the board members are advised on how to view immature profiles (five or less ratings) by the SR and ratings that have the same number of officers in the first and second block by the SR.  The board members are instructed to ignore the SR block checks for an immature profile and allow the SR narrative comments to carry the entire weight of what the SR is trying to communicate.  They are also instructed to view identical numbers in the first and second block by the SR as indicating a center of mass profile for those in the first and second block.

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 applicant does not contest that the OER being clarified by the SR was in error or unjust.  He apparently did not view the clarification memorandum from the SR concerning the OER key to his possible selection by the FY 1998 Lieutenant Colonel, Army Competitive Category, Promotion Selection Board since he did not provide it to that board.

2.  Although the applicant has submitted a strong argument in support of his request, the memorandum from the SR only states that the applicant was a strong center of mass officer.  The information provided to the promotion board members during the presentation by the Evaluations System Office about the OER in question would have reasonably led them to the same conclusion.

3.  The Board does not believe that the applicant was materially disadvantaged with his peers for promotion selection with the absence of the memorandum from the SR.  It appears that, in the applicant’s own judgment, the memorandum from the SR would not improve his chances for promotion the following year.

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

__jh___  ___ho__  __ca____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049447	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.11	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.