MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999031608

	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	
	Mr. David E. Weightman		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Member	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		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 lieutenant colonel.

APPLICANT STATES:  Based on discussions with the Branch representative prior to the promotion board, he elected not to request a complete the record officer evaluation report (OER), and this adversely impacted on the board results of non-recommendation for promotion.  His OER and records shows 11 months of branch qualification (BQ) time when in fact he spent more than 12 months as a battalion S-3 and an additional 15 months in other BQ jobs as a major.  His officer record brief (ORB) contained information showing non-resident Command and General Staff College (CGSC) completion that was probably misleading and purely gratuitous.  When taken together, these foregoing unresolved issues in his file adversely affected the outcome of the board.  He submits his own statements, statements from a lieutenant general and brigadier general, and other documentation, including copies of an ORB, OER and a promotion board analysis in support of his application.  The photograph and award recommendation he makes reference to were not received.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel submits no contentions or argument.

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

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Air Defense Artillery, in the Regular Army from the Reserve Officers Training Corps-Distinguished Military Graduate, Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina, effective 29 July 1983. He attained the rank of major effective 1 March 1995 and at the time of this application he was assigned as an action officer for the Deputy Chief of Staff Operations and Plans in the Army Training Directorate, Pentagon.

He completed the CGSC by non-resident correspondence on 29 February 1996.

He completed the CGSC in residence on 5 June 1998.

As a major he received 6 OER’s in varied positions from July 1994 to May 1999.

	1.  1995, 7 Months, Brigade Air Defense Officer, Europe (Italy)

2.  1995, 6 Months, Brigade Air Defense Officer, Europe (Italy)

3.  1996, 4 Months, Brigade Air Defense Officer, Europe (Italy)

4.  1996, 3 Months, Operations Officer, Europe (Bosnia)

5.	1997, 11 Months, ADA Battalion S-3, Europe (Germany)

6.	1999, 12 Months, DCSOPS Action Officer (Pentagon)
In these reports he was given maximum ratings by his rating officers and top block center of mass ratings by his senior raters.  In all of his ratings he was shown primarily as a center of mass officer.

The 1999 promotion board was announced and specified that complete the record OER’s was an option for officers meeting the criteria, and that these reports must show a “THRU” date of 25 December 1998.  The applicant met the criteria but did not request a report.

He was considered but not recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1999 promotion board.  His record was complete and without material error when reviewed by the promotion board.  The proceedings of the board and the reason for not being recommended was not divulged.  He did not appeal.

He was also considered but not recommended for promotion by the 2000 board which convened from 29 February through 24 March 2000.  His record was complete and without material error when reviewed by the promotion board.  The proceedings of the board and the reason for not being recommended was not divulged.

He has not been scheduled for separation at this time.

Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of officers on active duty.  This regulation specifies that officers may appeal a promotion non-recommendation.  It also specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration due to administrative error, the fact that action by a previous board was contrary to law, or because material error 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-recommendation 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 specifies that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection.

Army Regulation 15-185 establishes procedures for making application, and the consideration of applications, for the correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through this Board.  This regulation specifies that no application will be considered until the applicant has exhausted all effective administrative remedies afforded him/her by existing law or regulations, and such legal remedies as appropriately available to the applicant, i.e., application to Departmental officials in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-29, for promotion reconsideration.

The President of the Officer Special Review Board, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, expressed the opinion that the applicant received proper promotion consideration and recommended that his application for promotion reconsideration be denied.  The opinion is incorporated herein and need not be further reiterated.  He noted that the applicant did not appeal the promotion in accordance with, and as required by Army Regulation 600-8-29.  However, to preclude further delay this application was adjudicated.

The opinion was referred to the applicant for acknowledgment and possible rebuttal.  The applicant 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 to lieutenant colonel, or to reconsideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  His contentions have been noted by the Board; however, he has not shown error, injustice or inequity for the relief he is requesting.

2.  The applicant’s records were complete and did not contain material error.  He received proper promotion consideration under the established criteria.  He has not shown otherwise.

3.  The applicant did not exhaust his administrative remedy by application to the appropriate Departmental officials for promotion reconsideration, which is required to have been accomplished prior to application to this Board.  However, in the interest of time, and based on the opinion received in his case, and since he has also been considered and not recommended for promotion by the 2000 promotion board, this Board has considered his case notwithstanding his failure to exhaust his administrative remedy.

4.  The Board does not dispute that the applicant may have a competitive record, however, it notes that, as shown in this case, promotion and retention on active duty is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of a promotion board determining an individual's potential and ability to perform at the higher grade, and the needs of the service.

5.  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 workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as promotion board dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications.  Given that the applicant became a major on 1 March 1995 and that he would be considered in 1999, he knew, or should have known, that he would be considered by a 1999 board, and that he needed to insure, well in advance, that his record would present his career and qualifications to that board in the best possible light.  

6.  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.

7.  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

__js__  ___cf_____  ___ec_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031608	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000803	
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.