MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057509

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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:  Promotion to the rank of brigadier general (BG).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly denied selection and promotion to the rank of BG because of an incident that occurred early in his career, where he was protecting a young lady from sexual harassment and struck another officer in the officer’s club.  As a result, he was placed on house arrest and restricted to post for 30 days.  He goes on to state that while in Korea, serving in the rank of colonel, he was told that a four-star general recommended him for promotion to BG.  However, when he did not get selected, another officer working at his branch informed him that he had hit another officer and that prevented his being selected.  He contends that an injustice occurs when a recommendation from a four-star general is ignored.

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

The applicant was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve (USAR) second lieutenant on 25 April 1941 and was ordered to active duty in July 1942.  In March 1946 he was released from active duty (REFRAD) and was transferred back to the USAR Control Group.  He was ordered to active duty in March 1951 and remained on active duty until he was REFRAD due to voluntary retirement on 28 February 1973 in the rank of colonel.  He had served 26 years, 8 months and 5 days of total active service.

A review of the applicant’s records shows that he was promoted to the rank of colonel on 5 January 1970.  His highest civilian education was a bachelor’s degree and his highest military education was the Career Officer’s Course completed by correspondence (equivalent to advance course).  The applicant’s records contain no indication of a recommendation for promotion by a general officer.  A review of his evaluation reports shows that in most cases he was recommended for promotion along with his contemporaries.  His record contains no derogatory information nor is there any reference to the incident cited by the applicant.

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.  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.

2.  While the Board understands the applicant’s disappointment in not being selected for promotion, this in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the Board directing such a promotion when there is no evidence present to show that he was unjustly denied promotion. 

3.  Unfortunately, promotion boards do not reveal the reasons for selection or nonselection and the passage of time (approximately 30 years) makes it difficult at best to determine if the applicant was unduly denied promotion.

4.  Inasmuch as this Board is not an investigative board and since the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record that an error or injustice occurred in his case.  There is no basis to promote him further.

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

__rtd____  ___js____  ___dh___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057509	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/ADV TO BG	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.