MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF.

	BOARD DATE:            21 August 2003    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084844

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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, that he be reinstated into an active status with the United States Army Reserve (USAR) and allowed to complete the Officer Advanced Course (OAC).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that after completing Phase I of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) OAC, he received orders to attend Phase II of the course three times.  However, three times these orders were cancelled by individuals other than himself.  He claims that the last time his orders were cancelled, he was told by his unit’s acting S-1 that he was too close to his involuntary retirement date.  He claims he was told this despite the fact that his OAC was scheduled to end during the second week of July 2001, and the promotion board was not scheduled to convene until the second week of August 2001.  He states that he would have met the requirement for promotion to major if his orders to the OAC had not been cancelled, and he would not have then been required to retire on 1 October 2001.  In support of his application, he provides a recommendation from the commanding general of the 7th Division (Training Support), Houston, Texas.  

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

On 17 May 1985, after having completed almost four years of enlisted service, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Medical Service Corps (MSC) of the USAR. 

In 1986, the applicant completed the AMEDD Officer Basic Course (OBC).  On 16 May 1988, he was promoted to first lieutenant and on 15 August 1991, he was promoted to captain.  

On 25 June 1998, a United States Army Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, memorandum notified the applicant that he had been considered, but not selected for promotion to major by a mandatory Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB).  This memorandum also indicated that the applicant’s record did not show that he had completed the required military education necessary to qualify for promotion.  

In 1999, the applicant completed Phase I of the AMEDD OAC.  Neither his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) of Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contain any orders or documents related to scheduling or course cancellation of Phase II of the AMEDD OAC.  

Orders Number 01-269-001, dated 26 September 2001, issued by Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support), Houston, Texas, released the applicant from his active USAR unit assignment and transferred him to the Retired Reserve based on his non-selection for retention, effective 1 October 2001.  Although the documents related to this action are not on file, it appears that subsequent to his second non-selection for promotion, the applicant’s request for retention was denied, which resulted in the reassignment action authorized in these orders.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a letter of support from the commanding general of the 75th Division (Training Support).  This major general strongly recommends approval of the applicant’s request.  He states that the applicant served under his command for several years and he has found him to be a gifted officer, who is totally dedicated to the needs of his unit and a selfless leader.  

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the USAR. Chapter 2 contains promotion qualifications.  Paragraph 2-8 outlines the military education requirements.  It states, in pertinent part, that officers must complete the OAC in order to be promoted to major.  Section V contains guidance on non-selection for promotion policy.  Paragraph 4-30b(2) contains guidance on 
non-selection policy.  It states, in pertinent part, that an officer who twice fails to be selected for promotion to the grade of captain, major, or lieutenant colonel will be removed from active status unless subsequently placed on a promotion list, selected for continuation, or retained under any other provision of law. 

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 contention that he received orders to attend Phase II of the AMEDD OAC three times, and all three times the orders were cancelled by individuals other than himself.  However, it finds no evidence to support this claim.

2.  The Board also carefully considered the recommendation of the commanding general of the 75th Division.  While this supporting letter was highly complementary of the applicant’s ability and dedication, it provided no evidence to show there was any error or injustice related to the applicant’s scheduling for Phase II of the AMEDD OAC or in his non-selection for promotion, selective retention, and/or transfer to the Retired Reserve.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant did not complete the OAC military education requirement necessary to qualify for promotion to major.  It further shows that he was transferred to the Retired Reserve after he was not selected for selective retention subsequent to his second non-selection for promotion to major.  Lacking any independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protection throughout this process.  

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

_JS___  __RWA___  __RKS __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084844	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1023	106.0010	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.