BOARD DATE: 22 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110006476 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests consideration by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to captain/pay grade O-3. 2. The applicant states his packet for promotion reviewed by the Fiscal Year 2011 Reserve Component, Captain, Army Promotion List (FY11 RC CPT APL) Board contained a material error that resulted in an injustice. At the time of the board his records were flagged for failure to conform with height/weight requirements. Prior to the board, he satisfied all height and weight requirements and his company commander and battalion S-1 attempted to remove the flag from his records. His packet erroneously showed a flag for height and weight at the time of review. He believes this is a material error and impacted the board's decision to reject his packet. 3. The applicant provides: * a memorandum from his company commander, dated 20 March 2011 * a memorandum from his battalion commander, dated 20 March 2011 * his DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard) * his Regional Level Application Software (RLAS) APFT data * his RLAS data input page * his RLAS personnel maintenance page CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. He is a first lieutenant currently serving in the U.S. Army Reserve. He was promoted to first lieutenant on 1 February 2009. 2. In a letter, dated 20 March 2011, his unit commander supported his request for an SSB. His unit commander states that due to no fault of the officer, the records reviewed by the FY11 CPT APL Board were flagged for height/weight. Prior to the board, the applicant satisfied all requirements for promotion and he continues to satisfy these requirements today. He personally corrected this data in RLAS prior to review by the board. However, the board did not receive the update in time for its review. The applicant's records should not have been flagged for the FY11 CPT APL Board. 3. In a letter, dated 20 March 2011, his battalion commander supported his request for an SSB. His battalion commander states that due to no fault of the applicant, his records reviewed by the FY11 CPT APL Board were flagged for height/weight. Prior to the board, he satisfied all requirements for promotion and continues to satisfy these requirements today. His records should not have been flagged at the time of review. 4. An advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, in the processing of this case. HRC recommended denial of his request for an SSB. a. It was confirmed the applicant was considered fully eligible for promotion; however, he was not selected. b. The reasons for his non-selection are unknown. c. The decision to recommend an officer for promotion is based on the selection board's collective judgment as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered. d. It can only be concluded that the promotion board determined the applicant's overall record, when compared with the records of his contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion. e. Suspension of favorable actions or flagging information are not considered or made available to board members. f. HRC is confident the applicant received fair and equitable consideration by the FY11 CPT APL Board. The decision not to select him for promotion is indicative of the very competitive nature of the promotion system. 5. A copy of the above opinion was provided to the applicant. No response has been received from him. 6. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) specifies that promotion consideration or reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration. 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 civilian and/or military schooling. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The reason he was not selected for promotion to captain cannot be determined because promotion boards do not divulge the reason(s) for non-selection unless the individual is not qualified due to lack of required civilian and/or military schooling. 2. HRC indicated that flagging information is not made available to board members and therefore is not considered by the promotion board. Therefore, any flags he may have for height/weight requirements would not have been seen by the board members. The applicant provides insufficient evidence to show the promotion board did review any flagging information. 3. In view of the above, there is no material error in his failure to be selected for promotion. Therefore, there is no basis on which to have his records considered by an SSB. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X______ ___X____ __X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110006476 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110006476 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1