PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           13 August 2002  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064415

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests promotion reconsideration for chief warrant officer four (CW4) by a special relook board.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she completed the required military education prior to the board.  She submits a copy of a memorandum dated 1 October 2001 from the Director of Training, Headquarters US Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, in support of her application.

4.  The applicant’s complete military records were not provided to the Board.  The available records show that while serving as a member of the Reserve, she was promoted to CW3 effective 12 August 1996.  Her promotion eligibility date (PED) for CW4 was 12 August 2002, based on the required 6 years time in the lower grade.

5.  The applicant completed Phase I of the Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) in April 2000.  She was not scheduled to attend the resident course in 2000 and was scheduled for the January 2001 resident course.

6.  The applicant was issued her Academic Evaluation Report (AER) on 20 April 2001, showing she completed the WOAC.

7.  An Office of Promotions official verified that a copy of her Academic Evaluation Report (AER) was received by fax on 20 April 2001. 

8.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to CW4 by the 2001 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB), which convened on 23 April 2001.  She was advised that she was not qualified for promotion based on the lack of the required military education, completion of an advanced course, prior to 23 April 2001.

9.  A 2001 RCSB non-selection memorandum, dated 21 August 2001, was placed in her official records.

10.  She was again considered for promotion to CW4, this time by the 2002 RCSB.  This board convened on 22 April 2002.  The results were approved and announced on 6 August 2002, showing she was selected for promotion to CW4.

11.  In a memorandum dated 1 October 2001, the Director of Training, Headquarters US Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, verified that the applicant was enrolled in the Network Management Technician WOAC from 22 January to 27 April 2001.  The applicant completed the course requirements on 20 April 

2001.  Because there was another week left in the course for administrative time, out-processing and end of course critiques, the AER given to the applicant was dated 27 April 2001.

12.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby advisory board (STAB) may only be based on erroneous non-consideration 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 non-selection 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.  

13.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.  It further provides that "The promotion of an officer selected after having been failed of selection on a first mandatory consideration cannot be earlier than the approval date of the second mandatory board by which the officer is considered."  The regulation also specifies that completion of the WOAC is required for promotion to CW4, no later than the convening date the appropriate selection board.

14.  The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), expressed the opinion that the applicant does not have a basis for promotion consideration by a STAB.  The applicant was not educationally qualified.  She attended the Network Management Technician WOAC from 22 January through 27 April 2001.  A letter from the director of training at Fort Gordon, states that the applicant completed all requirements on 20 April 2001.  The Service School AER shows a completion date of 27 April 2001, the date the course ended.  In accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 2-6, the education must be completed not later than the date the selection board convenes.  The selection board convened on 23 April 2001, and the course did not end until 27 April 2001; therefore, the applicant was not educationally qualified when the selection board convened.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.

15.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for her acknowledgment/rebuttal on 18 January 2002.  In her rebuttal dated 15 March 2002, the applicant states 

that in November 1999 a staff member of ARPERSCOM advised her that he was having a hard time contacting her.  She later found out that her records were lost and as of this date they have not been found.  When she joined the Reserves in 1996, her entire military career had to be recreated.  The staff member also advised her that she needed to attend the WOAC and she would be eligible for promotion consideration in 2001.  She completed Phase 1 in April 2000 and was advised to attend the resident course.  In May 2000 her unit agreed to pay for temporary duty for her to attend the resident course.  In June 2000, she declined because she could not be absent from work on such a short turnaround.  She also states that she was later enrolled in the January 2001 class.  She was later advised that in order for her promotion packet to go before the 2001 board she would need an AER before the board convened, which she faxed to Promotions Division, PERSCOM on 20 April 2001.  At the time, she did not know the date was a problem and just thought PERSCOM only needed the AER by the 20th of April.  She received notification from PERSCOM that she had not been selected 
for promotion.  She also states that the Fort Gordon Warrant Officer Division later advised her that if her graduation date was an issue, they could have performed a special graduation prior to the board convening.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the opinion from the PERSCOM official, the applicant is entitled to promotion reconsideration for CW4 under 2001 criteria.  The Board concludes in this case that the applicant completed the course requirements on 20 April 2001, prior to the convening date of the 2001 RCSB, and she was otherwise qualified for promotion to CW4 at that time.  In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes the applicant’s records should be corrected to show she completed the required military education on 20 April 2001, prior to the convening date of the 2001 RCSB and she is entitled to the STAB.

2.  At the time of scheduling the applicant for the WOAC, the earliest course available was 22 January 2001.  She was permitted to attend this course for promotion purposes.  This is supported by the Director of Training at Fort Gordon.  He verified that the applicant completed the course on 20 April 2001, prior to the 23 April 2001 convening date of the 2001 promotion board.  He also confirmed that the applicant completed all course requirements on 20 April 2001, even though the AER shows a completion date of 27 April 2001.  He stated that the AER shows a completion date of 27 April 2001 because there was another week left for administrative time, out-processing and end of course critiques.  The Board concludes that while she attended the school until 27 April 2001, she successfully completed all WOAC completion requirements by 20 April 2001, and she was qualified for promotion prior to the convening date of the 2001 RCSB.

3.  The Board also notes that the applicant’s contention that she was unaware that the date on her AER would be a problem, and that she just thought she only needed to send the AER by the 20th of April.  The applicant was advised to submit proof that all educational requirements were completed prior to the promotion board convening and she did so.  She was provided a copy of her AER on 20 April 2001, showing a completion date of 27 April 2001, and she submitted this copy to the PERSCOM on 20 April 2001.  The applicant submitted supporting evidence indicating she completed all educational requirements on 20 April 2001, prior to the promotion board convening.

4.  The Board further notes that based on the applicant's PED and the 2001 and 2002 RCSB convening dates, and if otherwise found qualified for the promotion, the applicant is eligible for promotion on 12 August 2002 in both selection cases, whether by the STAB under 2001 criteria or the selection by the 2002 RCSB.

5.  In addition to the preceding, the Board also concludes that if selected by the STAB, the applicant would be further entitled to removal of the 2001 RCSB non-selection memorandum, dated 21 August 2001, from her records.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by showing the individual concerned completed the WOAC on 20 April 2001; and

b.  by submitting her records to a duly constituted STAB under 2001 criteria for promotion reconsideration for CW4.

2.  That if selected, her records be further corrected:

a.  by showing she was promoted to CW4 on her date of eligibility as determined by appropriate Departmental officials, provided she was otherwise qualified for promotion; and

b.  by removal of the non-selection memorandum, dated 21 August 2001, from her official military records.

3.  That if not selected, the applicant be so notified.

BOARD VOTE:  

__FNE___  _LEM___  _TSK___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Fred N. Eichorn
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064415	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020813	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.