MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  6 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999030927

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		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:  Promotion to colonel.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was not selected for promotion to colonel in 1978 and he later learned that his participation in Reserve activities for 1977 and 1978 had not been recorded in his record.  He also was informed that a package of his records was never sent to Reserve Promotions and that package contained documentation of participation and officer evaluation reports (OER’s) that he feels were not available to the 1978 promotion board and the Standby Board.  He also states that with a name as common as his there may have been mix-ups with his and other records.  He submits his non-selection for promotion to colonel dated 27 July 1979 in support of his request.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was appointed in the Reserve as a second lieutenant effective 2 June 1951.

He attained the rank of lieutenant colonel effective 31 December 1974.  His promotion eligibility date for promotion to colonel was 30 December 1979.

He was considered and non-selected for promotion to colonel by the 1978 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) which convened on 23 October 1978.  

A Standby Advisory Board that convened on 6 April 1979 reconsidered him for promotion to colonel under 1978 criteria.

In a letter dated 27 July 1979, the Commander, Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center advised the applicant that the 1978 RCSB was not aware that he had participated satisfactorily in the Reserve program for retirement year ending 20 July 1978.  His points were corrected on 14 February 1979 and this was the basis for reconsideration by the Standby Advisory Board.  He was advised the documents that were forwarded for the Standby Advisory Board which convened on 6 April 1979 have been reviewed and are not a basis for reconsideration.  It was further stated that he would be transferred to the Retired Reserve, as requested, on 1 July 1979.

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that a review of the applicant’s record revealed that it was considered by the 1978 Colonel RCSB.  The board consideration files used by those boards are no longer a matter of record; however, information obtained from applicant’s record reflects the applicant was not selected due to not having sufficient retirement points.  In March 1979, a 

correction of retirement points was made and the applicant was identified to a standby board for reconsideration.  The applicant was not selected again under 1978 criteria.  Based on these facts and the fact that this case is over 20 years old, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be disapproved.  

In his rebuttal to the opinion forwarded to him on 5 May 2000, the applicant states that the standby board did not have complete information and his 1978 participation was corrected, but not his 1977 nor 1979 record of participation.  He also feels that OER’s were not properly forwarded to the standby board timely and he did not get a fair evaluation.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion to colonel.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The Board has noted his contentions that his records contained material error in 1978 and 1979.  However, the applicant’s records were corrected in 1979 to reflect additional retirement points.  Based on the material error in his record at the time of the 1978 selection board, the applicant was reconsidered for promotion to colonel under 1978 criteria by a standby board; however he was not selected.

3.  The Board notes that the board consideration files used by the 1978 RSCB are no longer available; however, the applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that his records contained material error when considered by the standby board.

4.  It is further noted that selection boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for selection or nonselection, except where an individual is not qualified due to noncompletion of required military schooling.  As shown in this case, promotion is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of a selection board determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade.  Promotion and retention is keenly competitive, and many officers are not selected.

5.  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.

6.  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

__cf__  ___ji___  ___ew____  DENY APPLICATION

		       Carl W. S. Chun
	                                        Director, Army Board for Correction
	                                                      of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030927	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000706	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.