MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049611

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 he be reconsidered for promotion to major in the Georgia Army National Guard (GARNG).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was denied consideration for promotion to MAJ due to the fact that he had not completed his military education requirement to be a graduate of the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS3).  He claims that the fact of the matter was that he was enrolled in CAS3, Phase 2B (ADT) during the time that the promotion board convened.  He indicates that had he been notified of the date of the promotion board he would have taken action to enroll in an earlier CAS3 class and would have been fully qualified for promotion when the board convened.  In support of his application, he submits the enclosed course completion certificate confirming his successful completion of CAS3 and memorandums of support from both the Brigadier General (BG) of the Line and the Assistant Adjutant General of the GARNG. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not provided to the Board by either the applicant or by the National Guard Bureau (NGB).  However, his application indicates that he retired from the ARNG on 1 March 1999, in the rank of captain (CPT).  

The available evidence shows that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to MAJ by both the Fiscal Year 1995 (FY95) and FY96 Reserve Component (RC) MAJ promotion selection boards.  One of the apparent reasons for his non-selection was his not having completed the military educational requirement for promotion to MAJ of completing CAS3.  

The FY96 RC MAJ promotion selection board convened early in May 1996.  On 18 May 1996, the applicant graduated from the RC CAS3 course.  In August 1996, he requested promotion reconsideration by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) because he had completed the CAS3 education requirement shortly after the convening date of promotion board.  Therefore, he claimed he met the education requirement for promotion at that time and should be reconsidered on that basis.  However, this request was denied because he had not completed CAS3 prior to the convening date of the RC FY96 MAJ promotion selection board.  

The applicant provided memorandums of support for his application from the BG of the Line and Assistant Adjutant General of the GARNG.  Both stated, in effect, that the applicant should be reconsidered for promotion to MAJ since he completed the education requirement just days after the convening date of the FY96 promotion board.  They also commented on the fact that CAS3 was not a requirement for promotion on subsequent RC MAJ promotion boards and that the applicant was an excellent officer and an asset to the GARNG. 

In connection with the processing of this case the Board requested of and received an advisory opinion from the Chief of the Personnel Division, NGB, dated 6 March 2001.  NGB officials recommended that the applicant’s request for promotion reconsideration be denied.  They opined that he did not complete the educational requirements prior to the convening date of two mandatory promotion boards, as required by regulation.  Therefore, they contended his request for STAB reconsideration in August 1996 was legitimately denied based on his having failed to complete the regulatory promotion educational requirements prior to the convening date of the FY96 RC MAJ promotion selection board.  

The applicant was provided a copy of the NGB advisory opinion and given the opportunity to respond, which he did on 26 March 2001.  In his rebuttal, the applicant indicated that had he known the convening date of the promotion board he could have influenced his class to finish with adequate time to have his packet presented to the promotion board with his diploma.  He claims that it is significant that CAS3 was not a requirement for promotion to MAJ the year prior to his going before the selection board and was not a requirement the year after he was considered by the board.  He claims his request does not include any back pay or special time in grade but is simply based on his desire to continue to serve and that he would like to fill one of the vacancies that exists in the GARNG.  

Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), dated 1 September 1994 and effective 1 October 1994, prescribed policy and procedure used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the ARNG during the time of the applicant’s consideration.  

Paragraph 2-6 provided specific promotion educational requirements and stated, in pertinent part, that to qualify for selection for promotion commissioned officers must have completed the educational requirements in table 2-2 not later than the date the selection board convenes.  Table 2-2 stated, in pertinent part, that the educational requirement for promotion from CPT to MAJ, was completion of CAS3, which became effective 1 Oct 94.  

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 noted the contention of the applicant and considered his claim that had he known of the convening date of the FY96 MAJ promotion selection board he could have influenced the early completion of his CAS3 class.  However, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

2.  Notwithstanding the State Officer recommendations and the fact the applicant completed CAS3 shortly after the FY96 board convened, the Board is compelled to support the NGB position.  In the opinion of the Board, the NGB opinion is correct in recommending that relief be denied based on the applicant’s failure to complete the educational requirement prior to the convening dates of both mandatory promotion boards.

3.  The evidence shows that the CAS3 requirement was codified in the regulation and became effective on 1 October 1994, which was before the convening dates of both the FY95 and FY96 RC MAJ promotion selection boards.  Clearly the CAS3 requirement was well known prior to the FY96 MAJ promotion selection board.  

4.  Further, all ARNG CPTs who were considered for promotion to MAJ with the applicant were subject to the same educational requirements and rules.  Thus, the Board finds no injustice or inequity associated with the applicant’s promotion consideration and therefore, concludes there is no basis for granting the requested relief. 

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

___mvt__  ___mm__  ___jhk  __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049611	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/04/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/03/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 135-155	
DISCHARGE REASON	Two Time Promotion Non-Select	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310 	131.0100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.