MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            6 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070321

	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:  In effect, promotion reconsideration to major.

APPLICANT STATES:  That apparently his records were archived after he supposedly failed to meet the educational requirement for promotion to major.  He understands that the educational requirement for promotion to major in 1993 was the completion of an officer advanced course (OAC).  He barely remembers a passover for promotion or reasons for a passover until finding out on 15 January 2002.  He also states that he discovered the error in his records on or about 15 January 2002, after inquiring about the possibility of his return to Army Reserve duty. Many changes occurred in his life from 15 December 1990 and January 2002 and he assumed that his military career was over even though he was not quite sure why until January 2002.  He submits copies of his discharge document, OAC completion certificate, three DD Form 214's (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a Biographical Summary in support of his request. 

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

He was appointed in the Reserve as a second lieutenant effective 25 August 1978.  He was promoted to first lieutenant effective 24 August 1981.

He was ordered to active duty in an Active Guard/Reserve status with a reporting date of 9 January 1984.

He was promoted to captain effective 23 August 1985. 

He completed the Adjutant General OAC effective 23 March 1990.

He was honorably separated from active duty effective 15 December 1990 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

Based on the required 7 years time in grade, his maximum time in grade (MTIG) date for major was 22 August 1992.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to major by the 1992 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB). The board did not divulge the reason(s) except that it was not for lack of military education.

He was honorably discharged from the Reserve effective 30 October 1992.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to major by the 1993 RCSB.

His records did not contain material error when considered by the 1992 and 1993 RCSB's.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) 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.  Lack of notification does not provide an independent basis to be reconsidered by an SSB.

This regulation further provides that an administrative error was immaterial if the officer in exercising reasonable diligence could have discovered the error or omission and taken timely corrective action notifying Headquarters, Department of the Army with supporting documentation.

The Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Total Army Personnel Command, expressed the opinion that the applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion by the 1992 and 1993 RCSB's.  Prior to consideration by the 1993 board he was discharged from the service on 30 October 1992, and should not have been considered by the board.  Therefore, his name has been deleted from the board's official results.  Based on the fact the applicant's file was complete when the 1992 board viewed it and his name has been deleted from the 1993 board, he does not have basis for promotion reconsideration by an SSB.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant's request be denied.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement/rebuttal on 28 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 major by an SSB.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2.  His contention that the board did not see evidence that he completed the OAC has been noted by the board; however, the 1992 and 1993 promotion selection boards reviewed his highest levels of military and civilian education.  His records were complete and without material error when reviewed by the promotion selection boards.

3.  The Board also notes that the applicant was erroneously considered by the 1993 RCSB since he was discharged from the Reserve effective 30 October 1992.  Based on this fact, his name was deleted from the results of the 1993 RCSB.  Therefore, he also does not have a basis for promotion reconsideration under 1993 criteria.

4.  The Board further notes that as shown in this case, promotion is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of an RCSB determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade.  Promotion and retention is keenly competitive, and many officers will not be selected.

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	AR2002070321	
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.