PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             27 September 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001057122

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Eric N. Anderson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests promotion to chief warrant officer four (CW4) with an appropriate effective date.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly denied promotion to CW4 due to a system error that blocked consideration for promotion.  The U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command did not discover the error until 2 May 2001.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was appointed in the Reserve as a warrant officer one effective 1 March 1977 with prior enlisted service.

5.  He was promoted to CW2 effective 1 March 1980.

6.  He entered on active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program effective 6 June 1983.  He was promoted to CW3 effective 1 March 1986.

7.  He was released from active duty for completion of AGR Tour effective 5 January 1990 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

8.  Based on the required 6 years time in grade, his maximum time in grade (MTIG) date for CW4 was 1 March 1992.

9.  His records do not show he completed the Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) or the Senior Warrant Officer Training Course (SWOT).

10.  He was erroneously not considered for promotion to CW4 by the 1991 through 1993 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s).

11.  Current promotion policy specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records 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 non-selection 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 non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.

12.  The promotion policy also specifies that individuals will receive mandatory promotion consideration prior to their MTIG dates so that, if selected, they may be promoted on their future MTIG date.

13.  The policy further states that effective 1 January 1994 completion of the WOAC or SWOT is required for promotion to CW4.

14.  The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that based on the 6 years time in grade requirement, the applicant was in zone for promotion consideration by the 1991 through 2001 RCSB’s.  His file was omitted from those boards.  Based on this omission, the applicant is eligible for promotion consideration by an appropriate SSB under 1991 through 1993 criteria.  Completion of the SWOT became a requirement for promotion to CW4 on 1 January 1994.  If the applicant provides verification of completion of the WOAC or SWOT, he will be eligible for consideration by an SSB under the 1994 through 2001 criteria.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be approved under the 1991 through 1993 criteria and if the applicant provides the required education his request be approved under 1994 through 2001 criteria.

15.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 20 July 2001.  In a telephonic conversation with a staff member of the board, the applicant stated that he would not be providing a written rebuttal.  He further states that he concurs with the opinion for promotion consideration under 1991 through 1993 criteria.  He also stated that he had not completed the WOAC or SWOT.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was erroneously not considered for promotion to CW4. The 1991 RCSB should have considered him, so that if selected, he could have been promoted on 1 March 1992, his PED.  The Board notes that the applicant’s records, in accordance with policy, were erroneously not reviewed 1 year prior to his MTIG date or subsequent years.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant’s records do not show he has completed the WOAC or SWOT and he is not educationally qualified for promotion consideration under 1994 through 2001 criteria.

3.  It is concluded that he is eligible for promotion consideration to CW4 under 1991 through 1993 criteria.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by submitting the records of the individual concerned to duly constituted SSB’s for consideration to CW4 under 1991 through 1993 criteria.

2.  That, if selected his records be further corrected by showing he was promoted to the next higher grade on his date of eligibility therefor, as determined by appropriate Departmental officials using the criteria cited, provided he was otherwise qualified and met all other prerequisites for promotion.

3.  That, if not selected, the applicant be so notified.

4. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

_rvo____  _teo____  __ena___    GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		  Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057122	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010927	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	131.01	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.