MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029331

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 earlier application to correct his records by referring his case to another standby advisory for another reconsideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

APPLICANT STATES: That the Pre-Selection Board Screen forms sent to him after he retired indicated that documents were missing from his records.  He also states that 15 June 1994 form shows his branch incorrectly.  He was an engineer and not a quartermaster and that shortly after the 1994 Board he transferred to the Civil Affairs Branch and should have been so considered for the “relook” board.  He further avers that the records for his Army Physical Fitness Test were missing for both boards and sends them for inclusion in his record. 

His commander was biased against officers from outside the geographic area as well as those with formal education.  The OER was submitted when the applicant was leaving the unit and the commander set about to covertly and knowingly harm his career just when he was coming up for promotion.

He disagrees with the previous Board conclusion that the OER which he appealed was unfavorable.   He writes “This is empathetically not true--the OER contained inaccuracies in attendance and was satisfactory when it should have been outstanding.” 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 26 May 1999  (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence and argument that requires Board consideration.

The pre-board screening forms both list several missing documents. 

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.  Notwithstanding the pre-board screening forms, there is no evidence of deficiencies in his records at the time the promotion boards met.  If there were discrepencies, it was  the applicant’s responsibility to get them corrected, just as it was his responsibility to insure that the records correctly reflected his branch.  It is noted that the applicant offers no explanation as to what he did to correct these discrepancies or conversely why he did not question, at the time, the non-receipt of the information from the required screenings.

2. Implicit in the Army's promotion system is the universally accepted principal that officers have a responsibility for their own careers.  The general
requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as selection board dates, eligibility requirements and promotion zones are widely published in official and quasi-official publications and official communications.  Among other details, officers are taught to expect pre board screening reports and take prompt corrective action.

3.  However, in this case there is no evidence of any discrepancy in his record, except for the OER ending 5 June 1993 that was missing from the 1993 board.  Since the applicant successfully appealed that OER before the standby board met, his record was correctly reconsidered only under the 1994 criteria.  

4.  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.

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

__RVO__  ___EB___  __RJW__  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029331	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.