MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           17 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12901
                                              AR1999015786

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Charles H. Lounderman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 the rank of captain by a special selection board (SSB).

APPLICANT STATES:  That his officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period from 1 October 1997 to 21 February 1998 was not received at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) until 5 August 1998.  He further states that as a result of the OER being processed late, it was not received in time for review by the fiscal year (FY) 1998 Captain Promotion Selection Board.  He goes on to state that he was unable to verify that the OER had been received by the PERSCOM because he was involved in constant movements through Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary and Germany.  He also states that the OER contains vital information on his performance and potential as a battalion staff officer and should have been considered by the board.

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

The applicant was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant on 18 May 1995 with a concurrent call to active duty.  Upon completion of his medical service corps basic course he was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina and was assigned to a company of an Area Support Medical Battalion as a treatment platoon leader. 

The applicant received three OERs in that position as a second lieutenant that were all center of mass (COM).  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant (1LT) on 18 May 1997 and received a close-out OER as a medical operations officer that placed him above COM on the senior rater’s profile.

The OER in question is a change of rater report which covers the period from 1 October 1997 to 21 February 1998 and evaluates him as a medical operations officer serving as a Task Force Battle Captain, Assistant S3, and Assistant S2 for a 350 soldier Medical Task Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This report was also above COM but was not completed until 30 July 1998.   

On 29 July 1998, the day before the OER was completed, the applicant submitted a request for promotion reconsideration to the rank of captain and voluntary indefinite status to the PERSCOM.  

On 26 October 1998 the PERSCOM denied his request and cited as the basis for its denial that the absence of the OER in question did not constitute material error of such a nature that, in the judgment of reviewing officials would have resulted in a reasonable chance of his being selected for promotion had it been present in his records at the time the promotion board reviewed his file.  The PERSCOM further advised him that the report would have had to had been received by the PERSCOM by 7 April 1998 to be eligible for consideration by the FY98 Captain, Medical Service Corps Promotion Selection Board.  Furthermore, since it was not a mandatory report (promotion report), its absence from his file did not constitute a basis for promotion reconsideration. 

Army Regulation 623-105 provides policy and procedures for the submission and processing of OERs.  It states, in pertinent part, that an OER is mandatory for a rated officer who was not selected for promotion by an active duty promotion board and who has not received an OER since the convene date of the board that did not select the officer for promotion.  That regulation also provides that at the option of the rater, a report may be submitted on a rated officer who is about to be considered by a Department of the Army selection board, provided the officer has served in the position for at least 90 days of rated time. 

Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion reconsideration of officers on the active duty list by special selection boards.  It states, in pertinent part, that an officer will not be reconsidered by a SSB when an administrative error was immaterial or it was determined by the appropriate authority (PERSCOM) that there was not a reasonable chance that the individual would have been selected for promotion had the error not occurred. 

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.  While it is unfortunate that the OER in question did not reach the PERSCOM in time to be reviewed by the promotion selection board, the absence of the report from his records does not automatically constitute a basis for reconsideration by a SSB.

2.  Officials at the PERSCOM have been delegated the authority to review such cases to determine if in their judgment the presence of the OER would have reasonable chance that he would have been selected for promotion had the OER been present.  The PERSCOM, having the benefit of having access to all records considered by promotion boards determined that such was not the case. 

3.  The Board also notes that there are many occasions in which OERs do not arrive in time to be reviewed by selection boards and that if all cases were automatically referred to a SSB, an inordinate amount of officers would receive undue promotion reconsideration.  Therefore, it is imperative that some type of quantitative controls be placed on these type of cases to ensure as fair a process as possible. 

4.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record, that promotion reconsideration by a SSB is warranted.  

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

__js ____  __chl  ___  ___fe ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12901/1999015786	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	  	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  131.090		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.