MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  28 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001056503

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 reinstated in the Army Reserve and have another opportunity to be considered for promotion to Major.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a personal family crisis that prevented him from attending Phase II of the Officer Advanced Course (OAC).  In support of his application he submits a copy of his last officer evaluation report (OER).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was commissioned as second lieutenant in the USAR on 17 May 1986.  

He was promotion to the rank of captain/0-3 on 12 March 1993.

Informal coordination with the staff of the Promotions and Notifications Branch, Officer of Reserve Components Promotions, revealed that the applicant was considered, but was not selected, for promotion to major by the 2 March 1999 Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB) because he did not meet military education requirements.  The applicant was subsequently considered for promotion to major by the 7 March 2000 RCSB, but was not selected again because he did not meet military education requirements. 

The applicant’s records show that he had not met the military educational requirements prior to the convening dates of the RCSB’s.

On 2 January 2001, the applicant was discharged from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, due to his failure to be selected for promotion after second consideration.

Army Regulation 135-175 provides policy, criteria, and procedures governing the separation of officers of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR), except for officers serving on active duty or active duty training exceeding 90 days.  Paragraph 4-4 pertains to the removal from an active status.  It states, in pertinent part, that officers in the grade of first lieutenant, captain, or major who completed their statutory military obligation, will be discharged for failure to be selected for promotion after second consideration by a DA Reserve Components selection board.

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 
Combined Arms Services Staff School (CAS3), 7 years of time in grade (TIG) as a captain, and an officer advanced course (OAC) 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 (PED) will be adjusted by 1 year, accordingly; and that the individual will receive mandatory promotion consideration prior to their PED’s so that, if selected, they may be promoted on their future PED.

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

Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details and Transfers) covers subject policy and procedures and, in pertinent part, provides detailed procedures regarding removal of Army Reserve members from an active status.  Paragraph 7-4 requires removal of officers who are twice not selected for promotion to chief warrant officer three, chief warrant officer four, captain, major,
or lieutenant colonel.

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 notes that the applicant was properly considered for promotion by the 1999 and 2000 RCSB’s based on his promotion eligibility date (PED) of 
12 March 2000.  The Board also notes that he was not selected for promotion by the 1999 and 2000 RCSB’s and that he was subsequently discharged based on his nonselections.  The Board further notes that, as a captain, he is required to complete the OAC prior to the convening date of the RCSB’s.

2.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence,
to show that his family crisis prevented him from attending the OAC prior to the convening dates of the RCSB’s.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement to the Army Reserve or promotion reconsideration to major.

3.  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.  

4.  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

__js___  __dh____  ___rd_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056503	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010828	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010102	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 135-155//175	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  192		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.