MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           24 July 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055222

	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. David E. Weightman		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 military records show a mandatory removal date (MRD) beyond 1 January 2004.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that based on errors in his promotions he has not been able to compete on a level playing field with his peers.  He is applying for a command in October 2001, but he is at a significant disadvantage because it is a 36 month tour and will last until October 2004, and his current MRD is January 2004.  His records show jumbled-up dates, and that through no fault of his own, he continued to fall behind his contemporaries and respectfully requests an adjustment.  He was not afforded adequate time to compete for field grade commands, etc.  He submits a partial copy of his qualification record, a copy of his DD Form 214 (separation document) dated 4 May 1990, and copies of his promotion letters to major and lieutenant colonel, dated 2 May 1997 and 
26 October 1998, respectively, in support of his application.

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

He was appointed as a second lieutenant at age 23, Air Defense Artillery, from Reserve Officer Training Corps, Oklahoma State University, effective 
19 December 1975.

He served on active duty as a Military Police officer from 3 October 1981 to 
4 May 1990.  He was honorably separated at the time for failure of selection for promotion to major.

He was promoted to first lieutenant on 18 December 1978, later amended to 
3 October 1979, to captain on 1 March 1983, to major on 5 May 1990 and to lieutenant colonel on 28 July 1998.  His promotion to lieutenant colonel was delayed based on late completion of 50 percent of the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) on 7 July 1997.

His MRD is 1 January 2004 based on completion of 28 years of commissioned service.

Current policy shows commissioned officer’s MRD’s in the rank of lieutenant colonel are calculated based on completion of 28 years of commissioned service, or age 60, whichever occurs soonest.  Current policy also shows that completion of 50 percent of the CGSOC is required for promotion qualification for lieutenant colonel.

Staff advisory opinions were provided by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) officials on 10 April and 15 May 2001.  The opinions do not show improper promotions, and show the applicant’s MRD of 1 January 2004 as proper and in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 14509 [and 14507].  The opinions were referred to the applicant on 7 June 2001 for his acknowledgment and possible rebuttal.  He did not respond.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinions, it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a correction of his military records to show a MRD beyond 1 January 2004.  He has not shown error, injustice or inequity for the change he is requesting.

2.  He has not shown his promotions were improper.  The Board notes that his failure for promotion to major while on active duty and his late completion of the education requirement for promotion to lieutenant may have caused or contributed to a delayed promotion to lieutenant colonel.  His promotions to major and lieutenant colonel are otherwise proper.  The Board also notes his contentions that he was not afforded adequate time to compete for field grade commands, etc., are not supported by his request.

3.  His MRD is correctly calculated as 1 January 2004, based upon completion of 28 years of commissioned service.  He has not shown otherwise.

4.  The foregoing is supported by the opinions received from the AR-PERSCOM officials.

5.  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.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_mvt____  _wdp____  _jns___     DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055222	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010724	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.