PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           13 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067946

	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	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, 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 that a Special Selection Board give him promotion reconsideration.

3.  The applicant states that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was incomplete when the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board considered him for promotion.  Specifically, he states that his 12-month Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 19990605-20000604 was not in his OMPF and not seen by the FY2000 board.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he is a Major, Judge Advocate General’s Corps.  From 5 June 1999 through 4 June 2000, he was the officer-in-charge, Civil Law/Fort Shafter Branch Office, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.  As such, he received a 12-month OER utilizing DA Form 67-9. The report was an “above center of mass” report.  The rater and senior rater characterized his performance as “outstanding” and the senior rater urged his immediate promotion to lieutenant colonel.

5.  Army Regulation (AR) 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the officer evaluation function of the military personnel system.  It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS).  It states, in pertinent part, that completed reports must arrive at HQDA (Headquarters, Department of the Army) not later than 90 calendar days after the "THRU" date of the report.  It states that the importance of the OER to many personnel actions, especially those involving DA selection boards, requires that this suspense be met.

6.  The “THRU” date of the applicant’s report was 4 June 2000.  This means that, by regulation, the report was due at HQDA not later than 2 September 2000.  The cut-off date for information arriving for the FY2000 board was 5 September 2000.  The board met from 12-15 September 2000.  The applicant’s OER arrived on 15 September 2000 and was not seen by the board.

7.  The applicant requested promotion reconsideration on two occasions.  The US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) denied his request on 27 February 2001 and again on 27 March 2001.  Subsequent to these denials, the FY2001 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board published its results on 5 February 2002; the applicant was not selected for promotion.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The subject OER was an “above center of mass” report.  As such, it could only have strengthened the applicant’s record.

2.  AR 623-105, recognizing the importance of the OER to the promotion selection process, mandates that OERs must arrive at HQDA not later than 90 calendar days after the "THRU" date of the report.  Had this requirement been met, the applicant’s OER would have arrived in time to be considered by the FY2000 board.

3.  The applicant’s file for the FY2000 board was missing an “above center of mass” OER that, by regulation, should have been included in the record.  In the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to correct his record and give the applicant a review by a Special Selection Board for promotion reconsideration based upon the FY2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board 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 granting the individual concerned promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board using the criteria for the FY2000 Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate General Promotion Selection Board and including the OER for the period 19990605-20000604 in the record to be considered.

2.  That if selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel, the individual concerned be given and appropriate date of rank and effective date based on that selection.

BOARD VOTE:  

___cla__  __bje___  __dph___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Celia L. Adolphi
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067946	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.0100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.