MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999031536

	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. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 reconsideration to captain.

APPLICANT STATES:  While waiting for the results of the selection board, he reviewed his records and found that they did not contain his college diploma.  He submits a copy of his college diploma and transcript in support of his request.

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

He was appointed in the Reserve from ROTC as a second lieutenant effective 11 May 1990.  He was promoted to first lieutenant effective 30 December 1993.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to captain by the 1997 and 1998 Reserve Components Selection Boards (RCSB’s).  The non-selections were not based on a lack of the required education.

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error which existed in the records 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 nonselection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for nonselection, except where an individual is not qualified due to noncompletion of required military schooling.

This regulation specifies that a copy of the officer’s records are dispatched 30 days before the convening date of the board and officers are directed to review the records and submit copies of missing documents and other corrections.  And that an administrative error was immaterial if the officer in exercising reasonable diligence could have discovered the error or omission and taken timely corrective action notifying Headquarters, Department of the Army with supporting documentation.

Official records and promotion board procedures require that Departmental Senior Rater Profiles be affixed to OER’s prior to filing in an individual’s records and completed 90 days prior to review by a selection board.

The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that a review of the applicant’s records revealed that several officer evaluation reports (OER’s) were not seen by the 1997 and 1998 RCSB.  This office requested that 3 OER’s be certified true copies in order to be senior rater profiled.  Two of the reports are referred reports that reflect failed physical fitness tests, and the third report is incomplete.  The applicant was notified on 12 January 2000, and no response has been received.  The applicant indicates on his application, that proof of his college graduation is missing.  His 1997 and 1998 file reflects annotation that the promotion boards saw the degree.  A copy of the degree reflecting the board identification stamp is provided as proof as being seen by the boards.  Based on these facts, it is recommended the case be denied.  The applicant does have a basis for special selection board under 1997 and 1998 criteria for missing OER’s, not civilian education, however, these reports must be processed in accordance with pertinent regulations.  His case may be reconsidered upon correction of the evaluation reports.

The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgment/rebuttal on 14 June 2000.  He did not respond.

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 reconsideration to captain under 1997 and 1998 criteria by a special selection board at this time.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The board has noted his contention that his files did not contain his college diploma.  However, a review of his promotion files revealed proof that his college graduation was reviewed.  However, it is further noted that the board did not review several of his OER’s.  The applicant was notified and did not respond.  Based on the fact that the OER’s must be processed in accordance with pertinent regulations, his case may be reconsidered upon correction of the OER’s. 

3.  Implicit in the Army’s promotion system is the universally accepted and frequently discussed principle that officers have a responsibility for their own careers.  The general requirements and working of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications.  The applicant needed to insure well in advance that his record would present his career and qualifications to that board in the best possible light.  Promotion is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of an RCSB determining an individual’s potential and ability to perform at the higher grade.

4.  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.

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

__ew___  __mt____  ___kl__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031536	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000822	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.