MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058639

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 her records be corrected to show she attended the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS3) and that she be reconsidered for promotion to major and/or selected for continuation.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was not notified of her being in the zone of consideration by either her branch or her local personnel service battalion (PSB). Hence, because of a myriad of errors on her Officer Record Brief (ORB) and in her files, she was not selected for promotion.  Her local PSB made the first mistake by not notifying her of the promotion board.  When she notified them that the board was in session, she was told that she was not on their list for the February 2000 major’s board.  Then when the PSB learned of their mistake, she was told that their Standard Installation/Division Personnel System (SIDPERS) was down and maybe she would be selected anyway.  When she reached her current station, she informed the new PSB of the errors on her ORB.  She was informed that before the next promotion board she would have the opportunity to submit all of the corrections, to include showing she had her master’s degree.  Then that promotion board was moved ahead to October 2000, she missed out on that opportunity to correct her records, and she was passed over again.  Supposedly, year group 1990 (YG 90) officers were exempt from CAS3 attendance due to the lack of available slots.  CAS3 credit should have been annotated on her records.  Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.

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

After having had over 8 years of prior active duty enlisted service, she was appointed a commissioned officer in the Medical Service Corps on 6 March 1992 and entered active duty as a first lieutenant.  She was promoted to captain on     1 April 1994.  Her assignments included division social worker in Germany; chief, social work services at Fort Lee, VA; clinical director, division Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) in Korea; and chief, social work in Vicenza, Italy.  She arrived in Italy around September or October 1999.

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to major by the fiscal year 00 (FY 00) promotion board which convened on 8 February 2000.

In October 2000, the applicant requested promotion reconsideration.  The Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) determined that promotion reconsideration was not warranted.  The OSRB referenced Army Regulation 600-8-29, paragraph     7-2a, which requires a determination of material error before a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion reconsideration is convened.  A material error is one that, had it been corrected prior to the time the officer was considered by the 

board that failed to recommend him or her for promotion, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the officer would have been recommended for promotion.  The OSRB further referenced paragraph 7-3b of that regulation, which states that an officer must exercise reasonable diligence in discovering and attempting to correct errors in the ORB and Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) before consideration by an SSB is warranted.  The OSRB noted that the convening date of the FY 00 major promotion board was announced by military personnel message #00-39 (dated on or about 1 December 1999).  Her promotion OMPF was dated 27 December 1999 and her promotion ORB was dated 5 January 2000.  The OSRB noted that the applicant’s master’s degree was filed on her OMPF although it was not annotated on her ORB.  The OSRB contacted the applicant’s career branch manager and determined that there was no record of the applicant requesting a copy of her OMPF to review and correct before the promotion board met. 

On 15 February 2001, the applicant was notified that as she had been twice nonselected for promotion she would be released from active duty on 1 August 2001.  She was released from active duty on this date.

Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system.  Paragraph 7-3 provides that an officer will not be considered for promotion by an SSB when an administrative error was immaterial or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or OMPF.  A request that may warrant reconsideration includes an individual’s military or civilian education level as depicted in the individual’s record (ORB and/or OMPF) being incorrect.  It is the officer’s responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 is intended as a professional development guide for individual officers.  It includes only brief descriptions about active duty officers of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Chaplain Corps and the Army Medical Department.  However, some aspects of this pamphlet such as chapters relating to officer education, general promotion policies, and officer evaluation apply to these special branches as well.  In pertinent part, it states that officers in many respects are ultimately their own career managers.  The key is to be involved in career development by making informed logical decisions and acting on them.  One important element of an officer’s involvement is the accurate reflection of capabilities in the official military personnel files maintained by Headquarters, Department of the Army.  The OMPF, ORB and career management individual file (CMIF) contain the data from which important career 

development decisions are made for selection, advancement, assignment and retention.  Officers should review, update and maintain these records throughout their careers.  This pamphlet states that the purpose of CAS3 is to train officers to function as staff officers with the Army in the field.  The course goals are to provide students the ability to analyze and solve military problems, provide the students the ability to interact and coordinate as a member of a staff, to improve communication skills, and to gain a basic understanding of Army organizations, operations, and procedures.  

In 1996, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) was tasked to develop a plan to eliminate the backlog of officers waiting to attend CAS3.  The initial plan was placed on hold but revived and approved in 1998.  Waivers of the requirement were granted to those senior captains and majors who attained through experience those objectives taught in CAS3.  Officers who met one of three criteria were in the eligible population for a waiver:  (1) major or promotable captain; (2) successfully served on a battalion/brigade staff for 12 months or more; or (3) successfully served on a division or higher staff in a staff assistant role for 12 months or more.  Officers not meeting these requirements were considered for waivers based on an evaluation of other assignments and duty performance which provided experience equivalent to CAS3 completion.

In the processing of this case, further information was obtained from the Medical Service Corps branch manager at PERSCOM.  He indicated that since there was a problem with the applicant’s year group (it appears her records did not identify her year group as 1990 until 1999), she may not have been put on the list for CAS3 waiver determination.  He indicated that branch used to send out notices to the individual officers informing them of upcoming boards but since most of the notices were never received for various reasons, they stopped.  Branch then relied on the PSBs to notify the officers.  Information at branch indicates that several problems with the applicant’s records were noted prior to the February 2000 promotion board but Branch did not call her at the time.  They have a record that she informed Branch she had given a new photograph and other documents to her local PSB (while at the Officer Advanced Course at Fort Sam Houston, TX) but she was transitioning to Italy and could not closely watch the processing of those documents.  

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  She rebutted, stating that the point concerning her not being on the list for a CAS3 waiver still reflects negligence on PERSCOM’s part.  When she inprocessed to Vicenza, Italy in September 1999, she informed the PSB of the 

possibility of her going before the next promotion board, that she needed to add some awards and her master’s degree to her ORB and that she had just finished a photo at Fort Sam Houston.  The PSB informed her that she would be given the opportunity to sign an updated ORB and submit an officer evaluation report before the board convened.  She was not given that opportunity and she knows that her peers were afforded that preparation for their selection.  

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.  The Board concludes that the OSRB’s determination that the applicant’s case does not merit promotion reconsideration was correct based upon regulatory guidance.  As Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 states, an officer’s career is largely in his or her own hands.  “Reasonable diligence” means following up throughout her career, not just prior to the February 2000 promotion board, to ensure all her records are complete and correct.  As a commissioned officer, the applicant should have been aware of about when she would initially be up for promotion consideration.  It appears that she attempted to make some corrections to her records in September 1999, several months prior to the           8 February 2000 convene date of the initial board.  That was “reasonable diligence” but not following up immediately upon arrival in Italy to ensure these corrections were made was not reasonable.  It appears she allowed the PSB to put her off by telling her that she would have the opportunity to submit all corrections before the next promotion board.  “Reasonable diligence” in a commissioned officer should have led her to demand the PSB take action to correct the errors “now.”  This would have prevented the rescheduling of the next promotion board from having any impact on her promotion chances.

3.  Because of the above factors, neither promotion reconsideration nor selective continuation would be appropriate.

4.  It appears the applicant may not have been considered for a waiver of the CAS3 requirement in 1998 due to an error in her year group as annotated on her ORB.  The Board concludes this is insufficient reason to grant her the CAS3 waiver and subsequent promotion reconsideration.  A review of her assignment history leads the Board to conclude her assignments and duty performance did not provide experience equivalent to CAS3 completion and so would not have met the criteria for a waiver in any case. 

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

__rvo___  __jpi___  __rks___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058639	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020307	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.