MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  14 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002067552

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 his last promotion board for consideration for promotion to chief warrant officer three (CW3) be removed from his records and that he be allowed to rejoin the military as a CW2 in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was informed by his career counselor that he was unable to reevaluate his security clearance and that he should resign in order to research a unit that would evaluate his behavior with officer evaluation reports (OERs) to prove his self worth.  However, his command decided that he was not worth the effort, which was wrong.  He knew that he would not be promoted with his present record.  If given the opportunity to join and be evaluated for a while, he would prove that they were wrong, despite their lack of faith in him.  In support of his application, he submits copies of his civilian accomplishments since his discharge.

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

He enlisted on 17 July 1979 and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 29 September 1982, in the pay grade of E-5 in order to accept a commission as an aviation warrant officer in the US Army Reserve (USAR).  He was appointed as a warrant officer (W-1) on 30 September 1982 and was ordered to active duty on the same day.

On 8 September 1983, the unit commander suspended the applicant from flying status and recommended he be examined by a Flying Evaluation Board (FEB).  The FEB convened on 7 February 1984.  On 21 February 1984, the FEB proceedings were forwarded to the approving authority.  On 28 February 1984, the approval authority, a major general, approved the FEB findings and recommendations.  The FEB findings and recommendations are not in the available record or provided by the applicant.

On 23 July 1984, the unit commander submitted a "not recommended for promotion to CW2" on the applicant.  The applicant was not recommended for promotion based on his poor judgment and emotional instability.  The unit commander stated that he was unsuitable for promotion and continued military service based on his attempted suicide.  He appeared before an FEB that recommended he be permanently removed from flight status.  The battalion commander endorsed the recommendation noting that the applicant had been permanently removed from flying status by a FEB.

On 7 September 1984, the promotion review authority, a major general, approved the recommendation that the applicant not be promoted to CW2.  He also directed the applicant's release from active duty.  Effective 6 December 1984, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3, section XVII, for failure of selection, temporary promotion.  He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) on 15 September 1991, in the pay grade of CW2 after twice failing selection for promotion to CW3.  There are no promotion orders for the applicant's grade of CW2 in the available record.

The applicant provided several copies of certificates which show his accomplishments after his discharge from the USAR that relate to his certifications in firefighting and law enforcement.

Army Regulation 635-100 prescribes policy and procedures governing transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel from the Active Army.  Chapter 3, section XVII provided for the voluntary release of officers who fail to be selected for promotion to a Reserve component grade higher than that in which serving.

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 CW2 or CW3, 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.

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 the applicant's request that his last promotion consideration for promotion to CW3 should be removed from his records; however, he provides no basis for this request to show an error or injustice in his non-selection.

2.  Based on the evidence provided, the applicant was not entitled to retention or further military service and was discharged according to regulations.

3.  A review of the applicant's accomplishments in his civilian endeavors does not provide a basis for revoking his discharge.

4.  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.

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

__ao___  ____rs____  __ji___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067552	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19841206	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR   135-175	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	281	
2.	310	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.