MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC95-07010A
				   AR1999015411

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Patrick Bogenberger		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Aledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		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 to correct his records by promoting him to colonel.

APPLICANT STATES:  He repeats his contention that since he was not promoted with his peers (because of an unjust officer evaluation report (OER) that this Board expunged) and was also not considered with his peers for battalion command or senior service schools,  he is, therefore not competitive for promotion to colonel.  He feels that his record of service and his performance in demanding assignments demonstrates that he would have been selected for colonel had it not been for the racially tainted OER.   He also relates that he has been told by senior raters that, because he is not competitive for promotion, they will not “waste” a top block rating on him.   He submits his two most recent OERs to substantiate his contentions.  

He had earlier sought relief directly from the Secretary of the Army and from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (M&RA), but those requests were referred here. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on  18 December 1996 (COPY ATTACHED).

The OERs technically constitute new evidence that requires the Board’s consideration.

The applicant’s OER for the period from April 1996 to April 1997 when he was assigned as the TRADOC representative to the Air Force Training and Education Command shows that his rater considered that he always exceeded requirements and stated that he provided superb work and was an outstanding officer.  His senior rater, a major general, marked his potential in the top block and recommended immediate promotion.

The OER for the period from October 1997 to April 1998 shows  that the applicant was assigned to the Office of Defense Cooperation, Turkey.  The  character, attributes and actions factors were all marked “yes”.  His rater considered his performance was outstanding, marked him in the “Must promote” category and praised him for his actions and abilities in both planning and operations.  The senior rater, a USAF major general, marked his potential as “best qualified”, praised him for numerous specific accomplishments, described his ability as unlimited and rated him in the center of mass of  five rated officers in pay grade O-5. 

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 OERs do not demonstrate an injustice in the applicant’s nonselection  for colonel.  Although he states that his senior raters have indicated that they would not “waste” a top block rating on him there is no other evidence to substantiate that assertion or that they would have otherwise marked him in the top box.

2.  The fact that the applicant’s record lacks qualifying assignments in the form of battalion command and/or senior service schools has already been considered by the Board.  

3.  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.

4.  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

___PB_ _  ___EJA__  ___GFG_  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC95-7010A
AR1999015411	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.