RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           3 February 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER    AR2003091749

	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. Klaus P. Schumann		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his name be added to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) promotion board selection list for promotion to CW3 and accordingly promoted.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that prior to the FY 2000 Warrant Officer (WO) promotion board he coordinated with his career manager to ensure that his promotion file was error free and ready for the board.  His only concern was the civilian education level on record may not have reflected his recently completed Associate Degree because there had not been sufficient time for him to send the supporting documentation to the Army Human Resource Command (HRC) to update this part of his record.  He further states that he provided a letter to the President of the Board to indicate he had met degree requirements and that he was waiting for it to be conferred.  He states that in August 2000, he was notified of his non-selection for promotion to CW3 and was provided with a mandatory release date.  Further, he states that he pursued many avenues, to include writing his congressman, to correct this result.  However, all of his efforts were unsuccessful.

3.  The applicant further states that HRC would not release information concerning the board, but he was assured that the promotion board made selections in accordance with law and applicable regulations.  He further states that his assignment history, military education, civilian education, and training all exceed the Army's requirements and those of many of the WOs selected instead of him.  He states that he was the best qualified WO for promotion to CW3 and his not being selected was an egregious error by the promotion board which he hopes can be corrected.

4.  The applicant provides, in support of his application, a self authored letter, his separation document (DD Form 214), dated 1 March 2001, and a letter from the Army HRC, dated 23 October 2001, 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant's records show that he entered active duty in an enlisted status on 27 March 1985.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 67U (Medium Helicopter Repairman).

2.  On 25 October 1992, the applicant was appointed as a Warrant Officer in MOS 153DG (UH-60 Pilot) and ordered to active duty in that status.  

3.  On 1 March 2001, he was honorably separated by reason of promotion 
non-selection.  

4.  The applicant's separation document shows, in Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he earned the following awards during his tenure on active duty:  Army Commendation Medal with 4 oak leaf clusters; Army Achievement Medal with 
3 oak leaf clusters; Meritorious Unit Commendation; National Defense Service Medal; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal with 
3 bronze service stars; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with numeral 2; Army Service Ribbon; Army Good Conduct Medal 
(2nd Award);Overseas Service Ribbon (4th Award); Senior Army Aviator Badge; Army Aviator Badge; and the Aircraft Crewman Badge.  

5.  The applicant's military records show that he was properly considered for promotion to CW3 by both the FY 1999 and FY 2000 Warrant Officer Promotion Selection Boards, and that he was not selected for promotion by both these boards.  

6.  The applicant's records contain an Army HRC letter, dated 23 October 2001, which responds to an inquiry in regard to the applicant’s promotion non-selection from a Member of Congress.  The letter states, in effect, that statutory requirements preclude disclosure of selection board proceedings to third parties; however, the decision of the selection board reflects the collective best judgment of its members when comparing all officers being considered.  Further, it confirms that the selection board complied with all applicable laws and regulations.  It further states that the applicant's nonselection should be viewed as a reflection of the competitive nature of the promotion system and should not viewed as a statement that the applicant was not a quality officer.

7.  Additionally, the letter indicates that the promotion selection board could select a maximum of 421 WOs for promotion to CW3 from three promotion zone categories.  However, only 226 could be selected from the applicant's career field.  Ultimately, the Army selected the maximum number of WOs for promotion to CW3.  

8.  There is no indication in the applicant's record to show a material error existed in the file reviewed or that the relevant aspects of his record were not reviewed by the warrant officer promotion selection boards which convened in 
FY 1999 and FY 2000.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 provides the Army policy and procedures for officer promotions.  Chapter 7 contains guidance on promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB).  It states, in pertinent part, that an officer or warrant officer may be reconsidered for promotion by a SSB when one or more of the following conditions exist:  an officer was not considered for promotion from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error; a promotion board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error; and/or the board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not 
have before it some material information.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he met or exceeded all requirements for promotion to CW3 and that he was one of the best-qualified officers being considered for promotion but the FY 2000 Warrant Officer Promotion Selection Board erred in not selecting him for promotion to CW3.  However, promotion selection is based on the collective best judgment of the board members when comparing all warrant officers being considered for promotion.  Therefore, since the law prohibits promotion boards from releasing the specific reasons for an officer’s non-selection for promotion, the applicant's contention that he was the best qualified warrant officer in the zone of consideration is purely speculative on his part and is not supported by the evidence in this case.

2.  The applicant's available military records display a history of commendable conduct and efficiency with no disciplinary or performance issues.  However, the applicant's non-selection is not an indication of the quality of his record of service but a dynamic of the promotion process, which is subjective, highly competitive and sometimes limited in the number of promotions it is authorized to grant.

3.  There is no indication that the FY 2000 Warrant Officer Promotion Selection Board did not properly consider the applicant for promotion, acted contrary to law, or made a material error which caused the applicant's nonselection.  Thus, lacking evidence to the contrary, it would not be appropriate to grant the requested relief in this case.  

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_RKS___  __SAC___  __CLG___DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		Samuel A. Crumpler
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091749	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2004/02/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/03/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR600-8-24 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.Passovr	131.1000.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.