MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 October 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-05212A 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. Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member 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: Reconsideration of his previous application for reconsideration for promotion to major. APPLICANT STATES: He contends that there are significant discrepancies between the ratings and comments of his raters and senior raters and his senior raters’ profiles on his officer efficiency reports (OER’s). He also contends that he was fully qualified for promotion and that he received no support in preparing his appeal, that, in fact he was directed not to appeal. NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum which was prepared to reflect the Board's consideration of his case on 15 October 1997. He submits new evidence in the form letters of support from officers in the Wyoming Army National Guard. These include a former commander, a colonel, who remembers his very first encounter with the applicant, he describes the applicant as a successful dedicated, imaginative officer, an unconventional thinker. He strongly recommends that the applicant be retained and promoted. A lieutenant colonel, the applicant’s instructor at the Command and General Staff course, states that the applicant posses innovative ideas, leadership skills and experience and could serve among the best in any field grade position. Another former commander, a major, states that the applicant demonstrates initiative dedication and a willingness to go beyond the mere requirements. He relates that the applicant preformed successfully as the acting detachment commander while the writer was attending the advanced course. He states the applicant’s knowledge, skills, abilities, dedication and loyalties are needed The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate of the Wyoming Army National Guard concurs with the applicant’s contentious that he was given no help and discouraged from appealing and that the OER comments are disparate from the senior rater profiles The applicant’s record shows he had eight profiled OER’s as a captain. No senior rater marked him above the center of mass and on four of those profiles he was marked below the center of mass. There is no available evidence that the applicant appealed any of the OER’s. 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 applicant’s contentions and the letters of support are noted but neither demonstrates an error or an injustice in this case. There is no evidence of a material error in the applicant’s records when they were reviewed by the Reserve Components Selection Boards. If the applicant thought that there was a discrepancy between the ranking and remarks of his rater on and the ranking of his senior raters on any given OER he could have appealed that OER, but he presents no evidence here to substantiate that opinion or to show that he should be reconsidered for promotion. 2. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision. 3. 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 __EWM__ _RWG__ __JNS___ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director