MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  2 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001062349

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 given a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not selected for promotion to CW4 by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 promotion board.  He discovered that his most recent  Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the period 1 October 1997 through 30 April 1998, was not seen by the board through no fault of his own.  He requested that the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) conduct a SSB but the request was denied with the explanation that the missing OER was an immaterial error.  His senior rater had given him a strong OER for consideration by the promotion board but due to processing error beyond his control, the board did not get to see the OER.

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

That he was a Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) with a date of rank of 1 March 1993, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 1997.  He received a Change of Rater OER for the period 1 October 1997 through 30 April 1998.  The OER was a senior rater, top box, center of mass report.  The rater gave him top marks.  Both rating officers made complimentary remarks.  Since being promoted to CW3, the applicant had received six center of mass OERs, one below center of mass OER, and one “Achieved Course Standards” Academic Evaluation Report.

He was considered by the FY 1998 CW4 promotion board and not selected.  He requested reconsideration by a SSB.  His request was denied by PERSCOM which stated that the OER in question was received by the PERSCOM Evaluation Reports Branch on 14 May 1998, but to be eligible for consideration by the board, it must have arrived on or before the promotion board due date, 
5 May 1998.  Since the OER was not a mandatory code 11, Promotion Report, its absence from the file did not constitute a basis for promotion reconsideration.

He was considered by the FY 1999 and FY 2000 promotion boards but was not selected for promotion.  He was considered by the FY 2001 CW4 promotion board, selected for promotion, and promoted to CW4 on 1 October 2001.

Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 1.33.d, states that to be considered by a promotion board, evaluation reports for officers in the zone of consideration must be received in the Evaluation Reports Branch, PERSCOM, by the due date identified in the selection board notice.  An evaluation report received after that date will only be provided to the promotion board if it has a “thru date” more than 60 days earlier than the due date for the board, is a code 11 promotion report, or is a referred report.

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 OER, which concluded on 30 April 1998, was not received by PERSCOM Evaluations Branch until 14 May 1998, well after the due date of 5 May 1998, for submission to the FY 1998 promotion board.  It has not been demonstrated that there was any error in the submission and processing of the report.

2.  The OER in question was a center of mass report, which did not significantly alter the applicant’s CW3 OER record of six center of mass reports and one below center of mass report.  With the OER in question included in the applicant’s record, the applicant was not selected for promotion by the two subsequent promotion boards in FY 1999 and FY 2000.  This demonstrates that the OER in question would not likely have affected the outcome of the FY 1998 promotion board decision.

3.  Based on the above, there is no evidence that material error or injustice occurred that would justify reconsideration by an SSB for promotion to CW4 under FY 1998 criteria with inclusion of the OER in question.

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

__wm____  __rs___  __cg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062349	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020402	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.11 – Special Selection Board	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.