IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002619 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x ____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002619 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002619 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, in effect, that he be granted promotion reconsideration to captain by a special selection board (SSB). 2. The applicant states, in effect, he does not know what factors contributed to his non-select status. His education and hard work speak for themselves and being a non-select will negatively impact his career and his future. His selection for the Interservice Physician Assistant Program (IPAP) shows why he should be promoted. 3. The applicant provides two self-authored statements, a copy of his board file packet, and Military Personnel Message 16-184 (IPAP Army Selection Board Results for 6-9 June 2016). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was appointed as a Regular Army commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 26 May 2012. 2. The applicant was considered for promotion to captain by the fiscal year (FY) 2015, Department of the Army Competitive Category (ACC), Promotion Selection Board (PSB). 3. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions Branch, Special Actions, Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky. The advisory opinion stated: a. Based on a review of their records and information provided, the applicant’s request did not have merit. The exact reason(s) for his non-selection for promotion were unknown because statutory requirements prevented disclosure of board proceedings to anyone outside of the board in question. Any comments, conjuncture, or hearsay by non-voting board member would be purely speculative. The applicant’s non-selection did not imply that he was not a quality officer. It was indicative of the very competitive nature of the promotion system and the quality of the Army officers that he competed against for promotion. b. All PSB announcements allow for a considerable amount of time for every officer to review and update their board files as they see fit. It also allows the officer an opportunity to submit correspondence to the President of the board and its members to address any issues he or she feels is important during consideration. Failure to do so does not constitute material unfairness or a material error to be reconsidered for promotion by an SSB. 5. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory; however, he did not respond. 6. He provides evidence showing he was selected for the IPAP; however, his selection for IPAP occurred after the FY15 ACC PSB. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officer) specifies that promotion 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. 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 that time the individual was considered a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence shows the applicant was passed over for promotion to CPT by the FY15 ACC PSB. The reason(s) for his non-selection are unknown because statutory requirements prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone outside of the promotion board in question. 2. Although he feels that he should have been selected for promotion, there is no evidence and he has not provided any to show that a material error existed in his board file at the time he was considered for promotion and that error justifies reconsideration by an SSB. 3. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the promotion process pertaining to the applicant was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002619 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002619 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2