MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           6 August 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068914

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		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 reconsideration to chief warrant officer five (CW5) under 2001 criteria.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has an unblemished 32-year record with maximum officer evaluation report (OER) ratings.  He also states that not one Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) CW4 was selected for CW5, all six selected were troop program unit (TPU) warrant officers.  He has served in the AGR program for over 14 years as a CW4 and has been reviewed for the CW5 position at the brigade level.  He also states that his OER for 2000 appears to be missing from his file.

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

He was appointed in the Reserve as a warrant officer one effective 9 October 1964.  He was promoted to CW2 effective 9 October 1967.

He was appointed in the Indiana Army National Guard as a CW 2 effective 1 June 1978.

He was promoted to CW3 effective 3 December 1980 and to CW4 effective 3 December 1986.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to CW5 by the 1993 and 1994 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB's).  The boards did not divulge the reason(s) except that it was not for lack of military education.

His records did not indicate material error when considered by the 1993 and 1994 promotion boards.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s non-selection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.

This regulation also specifies that a copy of the officer’s records are dispatched 30 days before the convening date of the board and officers are directed to review the records and submit copies of missing documents and other corrections.  A lack of notification does not provide an independent basis to be reconsidered by a STAB.

The Director, Full Time Support Management Directorate, Army Reserve Personnel Command, provided an advisory opinion that was derived from reference to Army Regulation 135-155.  It stated, in effect, that promotion board selections are based on those solders that are best qualified.  Factors considered during board proceedings include, but are not limited to, evaluation reports, assignments and levels of responsibility.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 6 May 2002.  He did not respond.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration to CW5.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The Board has noted his contentions that he has an unblemished 32-year record with maximum OER ratings and that an OER for October 2000 appeared to be missing from his file.  However, his records indicate they were complete and without material error when he was considered for promotion to CW5 and he was simply not selected.  He has not shown otherwise.  The Board does not dispute his contentions that he has a competitive record, however, it notes that, as shown in this case, promotion and retention is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of a promotion board determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade, and the needs of the service.  

3.  The Board also notes that promotion and retention is keenly competitive, and that many officers will not be selected.

4.  The Board also notes the applicant’s contention that TPU warrant officers were selected but that AGR warrant officers were not selected; however, his contention is not supported by his application and does not show the Board that he was not properly considered.

5.  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.

6.  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

_LLS____  __PM___  _DPH___   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068914	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020806	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.