PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            11 FEBRUARY 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065032

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Antonio Uribe		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 to lieutenant colonel and placement on the battalion command list, or reconsideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a special selection board.  He also requests that the 6 December 2000 memorandum prepared by the Director of Military Personnel Management (DMPM) be replaced with one recommended by a retired brigadier general as reflected in his 30 September 2001 letter to this Board. 

3.  The applicant states that he was denied unbiased due process by the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) in adjudicating his case.  He requests the opportunity to appear before the Board for a hearing.  He states that his case involves complaints against the ABCMR director and a long time ABCMR voting member of the Board.  He states that a personal hearing would belay concerns that those influential persons would not exercise bias over the Board proceedings.

4.  The applicant states that he was provided an exception to policy to have a memorandum placed in his record that accounted for the significant irregularities caused by an earlier documented injustice.  The memorandum would strengthen his file, warranting a reconsideration board.  The OSRB, however, blocked his access to a reconsideration board by ruling that the memo did not correct anything and was in fact immaterial.  He states that the OSRB decision was factually incorrect, and was arrived at following unethical and biased tampering by a senior PERSCOM (Total Army Personnel Command) supervisor, (Mr. “M”), who strongly opposed the exception to policy.  The applicant’s remaining statements are contained in his request to this Board and adequately express his case.  His statements are summarized herewith. 

•	He provides information concerning his successful appeals at the OSRB and the ABCMR in 1994, resulting in his promotion to major and selection for Command and General Staff College (CGSC), the “scars” on his file, and the fact that he was passed over for promotion to lieutenant colonel because of those irregularities (“scars”).

•	He talks about the date of rank errors that impacted on his career, stating that he had 24 months less rated time as a major than his peers, an extremely negative discriminator, and states that a promotion board member, with only a few moments to review each of 7500 files would incorrectly conclude that he was legitimately passed over for promotion.  He states that the date of rank on his Officer Record Brief (ORB) did not match the two officer evaluation reports (OERs), one of them being a command report listing him as a captain when his ORB indicated that he was a major.  He states that he is supported in this respect by a colonel, a previous promotion board member.  

•	He states that for the last three years both the OSRB and ABCMR have rejected his appeals to have the “scars” removed from his file, and that the Army Secretariat [for the FY99 lieutenant colonel selection board] initially rejected his letter to that board, only inserting it during the last two days of the board.  He states that the Army Secretariat made it clear that he could expect the same treatment in the future. 

•	He states that he petitioned the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) for an exception to policy to have a corrective memorandum posted to his file that would explain the date of rank issues, which resulted in a meeting with the Director of Military Personnel Management (DMPM). In that meeting, he states that he made it very plain that the request for a corrective memorandum was intended to trigger a reconsideration board.  She indicated that she was aware that her decision to grant the request would have that effect.

•	He states that the senior supervisor of the Army’s promotion boards and appeal system (Mr. “M”) who was also a member of the ABCMR, overstepped his authority by leading the effort to nullify the corrective memorandum.  He expounds on his relationship with that official, to include his story on his interview with him on 16 August 2000.

•	He states that subsequent to that interview, he delivered a letter of protest to the ABCMR director to have the PERSCOM supervisor removed as a member of the ABCMR because of conflict of interest.  He comments on his interview with the ABCMR director.  

•	He continued by saying that the ABCMR director later notified him that his appeal was rejected and that the PERSCOM official would remain as a member of the ABCMR.  He states that the ABCMR director was working in cooperation with the PERSCOM official to conceal the fact that the Army’s ethic standard had been violated.  

•	He states that the law was violated in that 10 USC section 1556 restricted communication between other agencies and the ABCMR and that the PERSCOM official’s presence on an ABCMR board along with five others from PERSCOM and DCSPER represented a deliberate effort to circumvent the law by stacking the Board with its paid members, thus insuring that it could influence decisions in favor of PERSOM and DCSPER without having to provide written summaries that could be rebutted by appellants.   

•	He states that the PERSCOM official intervened and opposed his effort for a corrective memorandum, the granting of which would be a change in policy setting a precedent, affecting many other similar cases, and increasing the workload of the PERSCOM official’s staff.  He states that official overstepped his authority and violated the Army’s ethic standard by filing a strong recommendation to oppose his application to the OSRB.  He goes on to say that the PERSCOM official interceded with OSRB, and that the same officers who wrote the memorandum, had received a strong opposition recommendation from that official, and that those officers then turned around and nullified the memorandum as members of the OSRB.  He states that the entire affair was now the subject of a DOD IG investigation and a senatorial inquiry.

•	He provides a summary of reasons to grant relief, stating that soldiers have a right to use the chain of command, that the PERSCOM official clearly overstepped his authority in opposing his request to the DMPM, that he also failed to recuse himself from making a recommendation on his application, as he should have, and that he coordinated with members of the OSRB on the writing of the memorandum.   

•	He states that the PERSCOM official abused his membership on the ABCMR, going to its Crystal City location and accessing his [the applicant] records.  He states that he selectively showed only pieces of his ABCMR appeal record and did not let them see the 21 October 1999 ABCMR appeal where he asked for “full file correction,” where he had tried to write the promotion board, and where he appealed to the ABCMR concerning the rejection of his letter.  He states that allowing the OSRB selected access to his ABCMR appeal record without his notification or opportunity to rebut was a direct violation of the law.   

•	He states that the OSRB’s decision that the memorandum was immaterial and that it did not strengthen his record was inaccurate – that the OSRB failed to address the content of paragraph 3 of the memorandum.  He states that the statement in that paragraph was the only documentation that accounts for the date of rank differences and the missing major’s rating time as the result of a successful appeal.  Prior to the posting of that memorandum, there was no other verbiage that promotion board members could reference to account for those issues in his record.  Clearly the memorandum strengthened his record.

•	He states that the OSRB stated that they could not find his appeal where he sought correction, and also states that the fact that he ended up with three instead of two different dates of rank in his file was an error made by the promotion branch after his successful appeal.  He states that an officer subordinate to the PERSCOM official, his designated ABCMR representative [counsel], could verify this.  He states the OSRB found that the memorandum did not change anything, and questions the purpose of the exception to policy memorandum if it did not correct anything.

•	He states that the OSRB overstepped their authority, that the regulation did not authorize them to conduct an investigation or go on a fishing expedition to find a rationale to nullify [the memorandum].  He states that it is clear to him that the OSRB wanted to use both the memorandum and their findings, both written by the same officers, as a form of retribution for his formal complaints lodged against them in previous appeals to the ABCMR.  The fact that the OSRB coordinated with the PERSCOM official to examine selected segments of his ABCMR appeal record is by itself illegal and not authorized, and warrants relief.

•	He states that his file is missing about half the major’s OERs found in a standard-looking year group 1982 officer’s record, all the result of a documented injustice that he successfully appealed seven years ago.  His request for a corrective memorandum was reasonable.  This, his current appeal, is about the unprofessional and biased influences that occurred by subordinate staff in nullifying the decision afterwards (the posting of the memorandum).  The findings of the OSRB is categorically incorrect, and the influence by the PERSCOM official in failing to recuse himself from making a negative recommendation to the OSRB is unjust and warrants relief.    

5.  The following summarizes the records which the applicant submits with his request (in the order attached to his request) and reflect the most recent information concerning his case:

•	The 5 March 2001 OSRB decision denying promotion reconsideration as a result of the addition of a 6 December 2000 DMPM memorandum to his OER (930605-940604) and amendment of his major date of rank on his OER (940605-950604).  The OSRB concluded that the changes noted to the applicant’s OMPF as a result of the DMPM memorandum were considered “immaterial, minor administrative corrections,” which did not adversely effect the quality of his record, and stated, that all matters considered, promotion reconsideration was not warranted.

•	The 6 December 2000 DMPM Memorandum clarifying the adjustment of his date of rank to major as an exception to policy.  The DMPM stated that his OER as a captain for the period 5 June 1993 to 4 June 1994 was both administratively accurate and substantively correct.  She stated that his adjusted date of rank to major (931101) occurred as a result of his subsequent successful appeal actions several months after the contested rating period, and that the contested captain OER was unrelated to the corrective actions taken on his 1986 and 1987 OERs, which resulted in his reconsideration and selection to major and a later ABCMR decision directing his attendance at CGSC.  She referenced his 940605-950604 OER and stated that the minor administrative error on that report had been corrected.  She stated that a copy of the memorandum would be added to the performance portion of his OMPF.

•	A 30 September 2001 letter to the Board from a retired brigadier general, urging the Board to promote him to lieutenant colonel and select him for battalion command.  He stated that the applicant’s case was a clear injustice and miscarriage of standard Army ethical practices that if left uncorrected, diminishes the service as a whole.  He stated that promotion boards were very sensitive to any irregularities that appear in a soldier’s records, and have no time to look through a record for explanations of non-standard appearances.  Although he was promoted to major and selected for CGSC, his record reflected that of an above zone officer (passed over for promotion).  He had only about half the major evaluation reports as his peers, an enormous irregularity that would not have been missed by a selection board.  The retired general recommended one of two corrective actions that should have been taken, noted that the DMPM had granted an exception by allowing the posting of a corrective memorandum to his file, but stated that the subsequent events were an absolute injustice and possibly constituted serious misconduct on the part of members of the OSRB.

o	 He stated that the Board should replace the 6 December 2000 memorandum with a brief document that explained the irregularities; and that no editorializing or chastisement of the officer was warranted or necessary.  He recommended the replacement memorandum read as follows:  “This officer’s file is absent of        24 months of rated time as a major from September 1993 to September 1995 due to an injustice that was corrected by a successful appeal with a back dated date of rank.”  
o	The retired general stated that a review of the applicant’s record clearly supported immediate promotion to lieutenant colonel.  He stated that his record substantially exceeded the reports of the aviation battalion commanders that he senior rated while commanding the 1st Infantry Division, and that the applicant would have been selected for battalion command. 

•	A 27 October 1998 letter from a major general, then the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army, Pacific, who stated that the applicant was one of the finest officers on the staff, and after reviewing his file with his senior rater, concluded that the only reason for his non-selection for promotion appeared to be the remnants of two successfully appealed OERs from 12 years ago.  He stated that the applicant’s strong file and numerous positive discriminators indicated that the promotion board disregarded the 1996 PERSCOM memorandum which specifically prohibited prejudicial assessment of the corrections made [on those two OERs].  He urged the Board to support the applicant’s appeal and place him back with his peers on the FY98 lieutenant colonel promotion list.

•	A 21 October 1999 letter to the Board from the applicant’s brigade commander, who stated, that as a previous promotion board member, he could attest that errors, irregularities, and discrepancies place a promotion file at risk for non-selection.  He stated that PERSCOM had a long history of stressing this point to the entire officer and NCO corps and routinely counsels officers to make sure the information on their ORBs match the documentation in their files.  In addition, candidates before a promotion board are cautioned to have all documents submitted on time to avoid late paper work that might trigger a revote, a negative event in the course of a promotion board.  He stated that with only a few minutes per file, selection board members did not have the time to research the cause of an error such as a 16 month date of rank discrepancy, and that as a selection board member, he could easily conclude that the error was the fault of the soldier for failing to keep his record straight, or worse, determine that the soldier was previously passed over for promotion.  

•	A 14 September 2000 letter from the applicant to PERSCOM in which he requested a memorandum be placed in his record to explain the numerous date-of-rank errors that were present in his file [This request resulted in the issuance of the 6 December 2000 DMPM memorandum].  He requested a special selection board in the event his request for the explanatory memorandum was approved.

•	A 29 November 2000 letter from the applicant to PERSCOM in which he requested a reconsideration board and provided reasons for a reconsideration board, should the DMPM approve his request for a corrective memorandum.  He cited the three different dates of rank for the same calendar period in his record, the injustice to him stemming from his ratings by his senior rater [in two OERs ending in 1987], and the strength of his record.

•	A 15 September 2000 letter to the applicant from the ABCMR director responding to questions he raised in letters he provided the ABCMR director in his 17 August 2000 visit with that official.

•	A chart purportedly showing the involvement of a PERSCOM official in all levels relating to evaluation report appeals.

•	A 3 January 2001 letter from the applicant to PERSCOM requesting the status of his 14 September 2000 letter in which he asked for a reconsideration board to lieutenant colonel following approval of an explanatory memorandum posted in his OMPF.   

6.  The applicant has appealed to the OSRB on at least five occasions.  This is his sixth request to this Board.  This, his current submission, consists of new evidence and arguments that require Board consideration.  The new evidence and arguments are contained in his submission as reflected above.  The  following is a summarization of the applicant’s records, to include his appeals to the OSRB and his previous appeals to the ABCMR, and the actions taken on those appeals.  

•	The applicant is a Year Group 1982 aviation major who was appointed as a Reserve second lieutenant from ROTC on 19 April 1980.  He was appointed a second lieutenant in the National Guard on 9 June 1980, appointed as an Armor Officer second lieutenant in the Regular Army on 22 December 1981, and ordered to active duty on 8 January 1982.  He was promoted to captain on 1 July 1985.

•	OER for the period 16 June 1986 – 15 June 1987 as a captain assigned as a troop commander with Troop A, 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry, 101st Airborne Division (Assault) -
o	Senior rater (Brigade Commander) – rated him Below Center of Mass - third from the top block 12-15-16-1

•	OER for the period 16 June 1987 – 22 October 1987 as a captain, same position, same unit, same senior rater - 
o	rated Below Center of Mass – third from the top block 21-22-22

•	A 25 April 1992 memorandum to the Total Army Personnel Agency (Provisional) appealing his 870616-871022 OER because of substantive inaccuracy, requesting that the senior rater profile be removed.  He stated that the profile did not accurately depict the senior rater’s center of mass – in that the senior rater intended to use his three block, the block he received, as center of mass.  He stated that his senior rater admitted making the error of inadvertently allowing his top block to become over populated, showing an unintentional shift upward in his intended center of mass.  He provided letters of support from his rater and senior rater the latter stating that he inadvertently allowed his top block to become overpopulated, incorrectly reflecting a shift upward in his intended center of mass block.  His promotion status at that time was approaching primary zone selection. 
 
•	On 31 July 1992 the OSRB denied the applicant’s appeal.  

•	A 23 July 1993 memorandum from the applicant to PERSCOM appealing both command evaluation reports for the periods 860616-870615 and 870616-871022.   In this appeal, he also requested that the senior rater block be amended to change the posting from the three to the two block on both reports.  He provided his justification for the OER senior rater block change, stating that the senior rater misrepresented his profile.  He stated that the senior rater inaccurately believed his three block represented his clear center of mass.  In a 25 June 1993 letter to the OSRB, the applicant’s senior rater supported the applicant’s appeal.  Promotion status at that time was a first time non-select for promotion to major. 

•	On 2 December 1993 the OSRB denied the applicant’s appeal, stating that although the applicant had offered new arguments, he had not provided any new evidence to support his appeal.  

•	Date obscured - memorandum from the Chief, Appeal and Corrections Branch at PERSCOM to the applicant responding to his 16 December 1993 correspondence on the appeal of his OERs, informing him that his appeal was returned by the OSRB, which stated that all of his opinions were considered on his previous appeal.
 
•	A 9 February 1994 memorandum from the applicant to OSRB requesting reconsideration of his appeal on the two OERs in question.  Appeal was based on new evidence in the form of statements from various officers, e.g., 101st Division Commander, aviation brigade commander, Aviation Center commanding general, former squadron commander, former battalion commander, etc.  He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major.  He stated that the new evidence, which he submitted, completely documents the fact that the senior rater was not truthful in representing his OER profile and therefore established that his rating could not have been his considered opinion.  He stated that the senior rater committed an injustice and acted with definite bias by specifically stating to him that he did not consider him below average on any account, then proceeded to place him below average for potential by a factor of nearly 2 to 1.  He stated that the senior rater’s false portrayal of his profile successfully obstructed his commander’s inquiry and, based on his former division commander’s statement, the results of the inquiry most likely would have resolved the issue.  

•	On 15 March 1994 he was informed him that the OSRB decided to amend the reports by removing the senior rater profile in Part VII, but further determined that the senior rater block check would be retained.  The Board determined that promotion reconsideration was warranted under the criteria for the FY92/FY93 major, ACC (Army Competitive Category), promotion board.

•	On 19 July 1994 the applicant was notified that he was recommended for promotion to major by a special selection board that adjourned on 25 July 1992.  He was promoted to major with a date of rank of 1 November 1993.

•	A 16 November 1994 ABCMR decision (AC94-06099) corrected his record by removing the senior rater potential evaluations from the two OERs and by showing that he was selected for CGSC attendance, and that he be scheduled for attendance at the next available CGSC.  

•	A 10 June1996 PERSCOM Memorandum for Record (form letter) shows that the two OERs had been altered as directed by the ABCMR.  That memorandum stated that, “This should not be considered prejudicial to any future personnel action.”  The memorandum was signed by the Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch.  The two contested OERs now show that both the senior rater potential evaluation and profile ratings are deleted.

•	A 20 August 1998 memorandum from the applicant to the OSRB appealing the OER for the period 930605-940604 as a substantive error.  That OER shows that he was rated as a captain and that his date of rank was 1 July 1985.  His senior rater on that report stated that the applicant should be promoted to major and selected for CGSC.  His senior rater stated that he should be assigned as an attack battalion S-3 and to watch him excel; that he was equally suited for command or staff duties.  The applicant stated that his current promotion status was first time non select for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  He requested that his rank be changed throughout the report from captain to major to correspond with his designated date of rank, and that the last sentence of his senior rater narrative, be changed from, “Equally suited for either command or staff duties,” to, “After completion of CGSC, assign as attack/cavalry battalion S-3 and then select for battalion command.”  
•	He stated that the OSRB in March 1994 ruled in his favor concerning the appeal of two OERs, concluding that the senior rater had indeed committed an “egregious act,” and moved to correct the senior rater profile.  The ABCMR in November 1994 concluded that the injustice warranted further correction and sent him directly to resident CGSC, having determined that he would have been a first time select for CGSC had the injustice not occurred.  Since the appeal, his branch had rated his OMPF as above average and not a promotion risk.  However, he was non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  It was evident that the OMPF irregularities, discrepancies, and missed branch qualifying potential, contributed to his non-selection.  He would have been a major during the period of this company command OER based on his changed DOR to      1 November 1993.  That would have had a significant impact since the command was an Aviation Branch senior company authorized a major for commander. There also would have been no discrepancy with his DOR [on his ORB] and the dates on the OER to highlight a problem for a selection board.  
•	He stated that Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 5-33 states, “If rating officials become aware of information that would have resulted in a higher evaluation of a rated officer, they will take action to alter or remove the report in accordance with the appeal procedures stated in Chapter 9.”
•	He stated that when the senior rater wrote the narrative, he was a twice passed over captain with little potential for leadership positions in the Army.  A year later, that same senior rater recommended him for selection to battalion command, in part because he was now a major, promoted with his peers, and on orders to attend resident CGSC.  The new favorable information was his successful appeal, back-dated promotion, and back-dated selection to CGSC.  As the senior rater stated in his letter, “Had these conditions existed when he rated him, I would have recommended him for selection to battalion command as I did in his follow on OER.”
•	He stated that the corrections requested on this company command OER would not have been necessary had the injustice not occurred in the first place.  The discrepancy in his DOR [on his ORB] versus the OER dates clearly acted as a negative bias to a selection board and denied him a second branch-qualifying job as a major.  The regulation specifically authorizes alterations to a report when the rating officials review new favorable information.  A successful appeal that results in back-dated promotion and selection to resident CGSC clearly qualifies as significant favorable information that would influence the potential comments of a senior rater.

•	On 11 February 1999 the applicant was informed that the OSRB had denied his appeal, determining that the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the 930605-940604 OER.  

•	The OSRB contacted the applicant’s senior rater, who stated that of the     22 company commanders he senior rated, the applicant ranked in the top six.  He stated that he rated the applicant’s performance as a captain, that he did not discriminate against the applicant because he was a non-select to major, but took that into account and made a more conservative recommendation concerning battalion command.  He stated that he knew the applicant had been passed over and had an appeal in the system for earlier OERs.  He stated that the contested report was valid at the time it was written.  He reaffirmed that he stood by his letter of 20 August 1998 [supporting the applicant], stating that had the applicant been a promotable captain or a major he would have recommended him for battalion command.  He stated that he wrote his letter of support after being informed by the applicant that the regulation allowed him to appeal the evaluation based on new information, specifically his successful appeal and subsequent retroactive promotion.  He conceded, however, that the information did not change the applicant’s demonstrated manner of performance or potential during the contested report.

•	The OSRB stated that the senior rater was consistent in the word picture he provided with his captain top block performers.  The OSRB conducted a review of the senior rater’s narratives of his captain company commanders during the period in question, and stated that the senior rater was consistent in his narrative comments and used no absolute endorsement regarding future battalion command potential in any of the narratives examined.  

•	The OSRB noted that the senior rater comments were positive, laudatory, and highlighted key contributions made by the applicant, and the word picture provided did not portray the applicant as being distinctly superior to his contemporaries in terms of either performance or potential.  The OSRB concluded that, in retrospect, the senior rater was attempting to help the applicant, who was non-selected to lieutenant colonel.  The OSRB stated that the senior rater and the applicant provided no new information in their statements, and concluded that the senior rater’s contention that he erred based on “new information” was without merit.   
	
•	The OSRB noted that the applicant did not receive confirmation of the success of his appeal until March 1994, two months prior to the end of the contested report, and that the determination of his promotion reconsideration was not published until July 1994, after the rating period.  The applicant was not in a promotable status during any portion of the rating period; therefore, he could not by regulation, be rated as a major.  Additionally, the senior rater confirmed that he considered the applicant a captain, and he rated him with those contemporaries.  The applicant did not provide, and the OSRB did not find, the necessary evidence to amend the applicant’s grade or the senior rater’s narrative on the report.
•	A 30 July 1998 request from the applicant to the ABCMR that the senior rater comments on the two OERs (860616-870615 and 870616-871022) be removed, that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel, and that his name be placed on the next aviation battalion command list.
•	He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were selected for promotion at that time, and that his “branch chief determined that the only possible explanation for his non-selection was that the promotion board viewed the appealed OERs as a show-stopping discriminator and assumed the blocked out profiles to be derogatory.”  PERSCOM Aviation Branch had assessed his file as no-risk-to-promotion and placed him in the upper half of his peers.  The appealed OERs, absent of any senior rater profile, were considered effectively neutralized of having any negative impact.  His straight one block duty performance clearly demonstrated that the ABCMR’s correction was unfortunately insufficient to correct the negative impact of the injustice.  The proven “egregious” action by the senior rater should alone warrant removal of his entire portion.  Based on his previous reports, he clearly would have been promoted had the senior rater scored him as center of mass as he intended.  Had the injustice never occurred, his file would have appeared before the selection board with no irregularities and the weight of his duty performance would have led to selection to lieutenant colonel along with 73 percent of his peers.
•	The senior rater narrative of the appealed OERs was consistent with an average evaluation of a junior captain who had yet to attend the advanced course, a requirement for promotion to major.  The board could only have assumed that the blocked out profile indicated a poor evaluation.   He could expect no better than center of mass evaluations from his senior raters in the future regardless of his duty performance since his potential was extremely limited.  
•	He stated that by the time the ABCMR reviews his appeal, he will have missed his two primary command selection boards.  There are no re-looks for battalion command selection.  His experience and duty performance indicated that he had a reasonable chance at being selected for battalion command.

•	On 2 September 1998, the ABCMR denied the applicant’s request         (AC98-09905), concluding that the senior rater portion of the contested OERs, which reflected his service as a captain, contained no adverse remarks; and that his contention that his branch chief believed that the only possible explanation for his non-selection for promotion was that the promotion board viewed the appealed OERs as a show-stopping discriminator and assumed the blocked out profiles to be derogatory, was viewed as speculation by an individual who was not a member of the promotion board and could not reasonably be considered as evidence of error or injustice.

•	A 22 July 1999 PERSCOM memorandum notified the applicant that he was a second nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel, and was required to be retired or discharged no later than 1 February 2000. 

•	A 9 July 1999 request to ABCMR to correct his OER for the period            5 June 1993 to 4 June 1994 to reflect his rank of major, to change the senior rater comments, and in light of his modified request that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel with his peers and placed on the next available aviation battalion command list, that his request as contained in the 2 September 1998 board decision (concerning OERs for the periods 16 June 1986 – 15 June 1987 and 16 June 1987 – 2 October 1987) be reconsidered.
•	The applicant stated that despite his exemplary record of service he was passed over for selection to lieutenant colonel by the March 1998 and March 1999 promotion boards.  He stated that the OSRB should have corrected his OER for the ending period 4 June 1994 because new information had come to light; and that regarding the decision of the          2 September 1998 Board, he provided letters of support that provide evidence, based on expert opinion, that the reason for his non-selection by the promotion board was the negative assessment rendered by the board against the successfully appealed 1986 and 1987 OERs in question.
•	The applicant requested that the report (ending in 1994) be altered by having his rank changed throughout the report from captain to major to correspond with his designated date of rank and to replace the last sentence of the senior rater narrative, “Equally suited for either command or staff duties,” with, “After completion of CGSC, assign as attack/cavalry battalion S-3 and then select for battalion command.”  He was supported by his senior rater in this respect. 
•	Because the ABCMR ruled that the narratives [on the two OERs] were in fact “laudatory” and did not warrant removal, then his argument that the promotion board focused on the “corrections” to the successfully appealed OERs is further substantiated.  He stated that the odds that the promotion board voted to non select his file without prejudice toward his corrected reports was extremely remote.  Seventy-three percent of his aviation peers and over 91 percent of resident CGSC peers were selected.  He had 11 years of top block ratings on his OERs, resident CGSC, two master’s degrees, and numerous recommendations for below zone [promotion] and battalion command.  The promotion board allocated only a few minutes per file, and wrongfully prejudiced his file by negatively assessing the corrected reports in question.  He provided letters from the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Pacific; two former brigade commanders; his senior rater, and former battalion commander; his rater and former battalion commander; who all reviewed his file and concluded that the reason for his non-selection was the negative assessment rendered by the promotion board against the successfully appealed OERs in question.

•	On 1 September 1999 the ABCMR denied his request (AR1999029201), concluding that there was no evidence to show that the lieutenant colonel selection board was negatively biased by the “no prejudice” memorandum (concerning the two OERs) or equated the blocked out profiles to be a derogatory rating.  Those same documents were seen by his major selection board and there was no contention that board was negatively biased.  Even the former promotion board member qualified his expert opinion by stating that the two OERs “might” have accounted for his non-selection. 

•	The ABCMR concluded that the lieutenant colonel selection board did not necessarily see his file as above average, as his former branch manager saw it.  The Board noted that, except for his earlier OERs which did indicate an above-center-of-mass senior rater profile, the applicant’s ratings have been generally center-of-mass.  His current senior rater, who has stated that the applicant was one of his best officers with outstanding potential, placed every one of his total of 16 ratings in the top block.  In his previously submitted OER, his senior rater had placed every one of his total of 18 ratings in the top block.  The Board concluded that the applicant’s senior raters did not provide a clear message to the board members that the applicant had outstanding potential, and in a time of downsizing, that might have been the discriminating factor in his non-selection.  The Board concluded that the command selection boards might have used the same reasoning when the applicant was not selected for aviation battalion command, and that in any event, the Board would not second guess the qualifications aviation branch required for its command assignments.

•	The ABCMR concluded that the OSRB’s decision regarding the OER for the period 5 June 1993 – 4 June 1994 was correct.  Requests to alter an accepted report would not be honored except when information was unknown when the report was prepared is brought to light.  The Board concluded that regulation meant for such information to have existed at the time a report was prepared but was unknown.  The applicant’s promotion to major was not just “unknown,” at that time; it did not exist.
•	21 October 1999 – request to the ABCMR for reconsideration of his          9 July 1999 appeal.  He requested that the two OERs be corrected to reflect the senior rater profile of two blocks as the senior rater stated was his intent, requested that the penalty memo of 10 June 1996 posted next to those two OERs be removed, and requested to have his date of rank and rank corrected on the OER for the period 5 June 1993 – 4 June 1994 to match the dates on his ORB.
•	He requested that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel after the DA PERSCOM commander rejected his request to grant a reconsideration board for the FY99 lieutenant colonel selection board.  He contended that his promotion record was not correct due to the wrongful rejection of his letter to the Board President by the DA Secretariat’s office, which in effect denied him due process.  He requested that this new appeal with the reconsideration be included with this request.  He requested that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel with his peers and be placed on the next available battalion command list to command a line battalion.  He stated that he wanted to inform the Board that he had received a favorable response from a senator and that he had asked that senator to endorse his request to the ABCMR for a formal hearing. 
•	He stated that his request was based on new evidence that established that the ABCMR made critical objective data errors in rendering the decision to reject his appeal in their 8 September 1999 narrative.  In addition, the ABCMR elected to remain silent on the evidence submitted concerning the effects that errors, irregularities, and discrepancies have on placing a file at risk for promotion.
•	The applicant provided a 15 page narrative, the first part dealing with the reconsideration of his 9 July 1999 appeal (1 September 1999 Board decision), stating that there were four basic premises supported by new evidence that formed the basis of his request for reconsideration – (1) is the contention that errors, irregularities and discrepancies in a promotion packet place a file at risk for promotion, (2) is the contention that his file has significant errors, irregularities, and discrepancies, all caused by a previous documented injustice, (3) is his contention that the OSRB and the ABCMR as a policy do not support the removal of these errors, and (4) is his contention that the OSRB and ABCMR have rendered the PERSCOM memo dated 10 June 1996, designed to protect him from prejudicial assessment, impotent by setting unattainable standards of evidence.
•	He stated that his assignment officer stated that he was in the running for a battalion command selection based on a strong project warrior performance but had a one in three chance, less than 50 percent, and that his greatest handicap was the irregularities in his file.  
•	He provided a letter of support from a colonel, a former promotion board member, who stated that back to back blocked out senior rater profiles would frequently cause suspicion of a “problem” for promotion board members, and that in his view, totally removing a successfully appealed OER is preferable to partial corrections.  Irregularities in a promotion OMPF should be avoided, if at all possible.
•	He made reference to the OSRB rejection of his appeal in which the OSRB stated that he was not in a promotable status and could not by regulation be rated as a major.  He stated the Chief of the Appeals and Corrections Branch made it clear there was no prohibition in the regulation, but plainly stated that it was in fact OSRB policy not to amend his grade on the 1993-1994 OER.
•	He stated that in the major’s board, success did not occur, and that he had never been successful in a DA Major selection board.  He was passed over twice, and was promoted by a special reconsideration board conducted by a medical selection board that had no access to the vast majority of his peer group’s files.  He provided a 21 September 1999 memorandum for record of his conversation with an official of the promotions branch at PERSCOM who informed him that a reconsideration board enjoyed a higher selection rate since there were only twelve files used from the peer group.
•	He stated that the colonel’s “might” was taken out of context by the ABCMR (paragraph 2 of the discussion in the 1 September 1999 ABCMR case). He argued that colonel made it clear that there was little doubt that the promotion board was negatively biased by the back-to-back altered reports, despite the “no prejudice memo” in the file.
•	He disputed the statements in the 1 September 1999 ABCMR case which indicated that his file was generally center of mass or average, statements which contradict the finding of the November 1994 ABCMR assessment.  He stated that a major in Aviation Branch at PERSCOM would confirm that there had been no downward trend in his duty performance since selected for CGSC in 1994 by the ABCMR, and that the conclusion that his non-selection was related to the effects of the draw down was not valid, as his year group of 1982 was already down sized prior to the November 1994 assessment of above average by the ABCMR.  He stated that that was not true for the majority of other year groups.  He stated that this new down graded assessment [by the ABCMR] was in direct conflict with the assessment of his branch, his rating chain, and the review of previous PERSCOM experts.  He stated that if the ABCMR was going to include the 1998 OER [as an example], with its center of mass score (albeit recommending him for battalion command by the senior rater), which he stated was irrelevant, then it should have included the May 1999 OER, which was above center of mass and contained the senior rater narrative “best of 20 majors,” with strong recommendations for below zone promotion and battalion command. He stated that his file prior to the selection board was scored above average by the ABCMR itself and by PERSCOM branch, and was consistent with his performance rendered as a “project warrior.”  He provided a 13 October 1999 memorandum for record concerning his assignment in the project warrior program.  
•	He referred to the statement made by the 1 September 1999 Board in which the Board stated that it concluded that the command selection boards may have used the same reasoning when he was not selected for aviation battalion command.  He stated that the major in the PERSCOM aviation branch confirmed that he had never had his files go before a battalion command selection board.      
•	He stated that if the ABCMR wanted to invoke the new Army Regulation 623-105 dated 1 April 1998, then his case was even stronger since this paragraph was eliminated, meaning there was no regulatory requirement that the new information had to have existed before.
•	He stated that the statement by the ABCMR (5 June 1993 – 4 June 1994 OER) that his promotion to major was not just unknown at the time but did not exist (1 September 1999 Board), was objectively incorrect.  The OSRB never stated nor referred to any interpretation of Army Regulation        623-105, paragraph 5-33, in rejecting his appeal in its February 1999 rejection narrative.  In fact the OSRB accepted the new information gained by his back dated promotion to major for review but concluded that it amounted to retrospective thinking and denied the appeal.  His rating chain supported the correction and Army regulatory precedents applied.  When his date of rank was corrected on his ORB following his back dated promotion, he was afforded all the privileges and responsibilities of a major with that back dated date of rank.  He requested that the ABCMR evaluate the justification of retrospective thinking that the OSRB used in rejecting his claim, since the ABCMR did not do so in their September 1999 narrative. The OSRB’s contention that this was retrospective thinking was without merit. 
•	He indicated that the information that he was exonerated in an OER appeal, selected for promotion with back dated date of rank and directed to the next resident CGSC was sufficient new favorable information to warrant a change to the senior rater’s narrative portion of the OER, as evidenced by the colonel’s 20 August 1998 letter to the OSRB.
•	The applicant stated that he was denied due process by the DA Secretariat’s office in that his letter to the President of the FY-99 lieutenant colonel selection board addressing the irregularities in his file caused by the previous injustice, had been denied, and then accepted by the board.  The Secretariat’s office wrongfully denied the letter for three weeks during a four week board.  No dates were recorded on when board members voted and there was no record of revote.  Even if a revote could be documented, it would not equate to the same treatment as every other file in his population.  Colonel W, a former selection board member indicated that a revote of a file was a negative event in the process of a selection board.  He stated that the Secretariat’s office made an honest mistake in denying his letter; however, given that his file was exposed to board voting for three weeks made it almost a certainty that his file was voted on by at least some members without his letter.  If the Secretariat’s office could not provide documentation that his file was actually voted on by every board member with his letter, then the ABCMR must rule that he had been denied due process.  Even a record of a revote would not equate to equal treatment.  In his 27 May 1999 letter he brought the matter to the attention of the PERSCOM commander and requested a re-look board in the event he was not selected for promotion.  In a 25 June 1999 letter the PERSCOM commander informed him that his letter was presented to the board as part of his promotion file and voted on by all members prior to any promotion board decisions being made.  He stated that the DA Secretariat’s office in wrongfully rejecting his letter during most of the promotion board’s voting denied him due process and rendered his promotion record in error. 
•	In a 15 March 2000 letter the PERSCOM IG informed the applicant that the Secretariat’s initial rejection of his letter to the promotion board was an honest mistake.  The PERSCOM IG stated that his letter was inserted at about the 20th day of the board’s session, and that the Secretariat believed this his letter constituted “new” information, therefore, it acted in accordance with the Board Memorandum of Instruction, “If the board receives additional information concerning an officer under consideration, it may revote the officer’s file and, if necessary, adjust the final relative standing and the selection list.”  He again requested immediate promotion to lieutenant colonel in letters to this Board of 23 February 2000 and          27 May 2000, requesting that those letters, with enclosures, be incorporated into his 21 October 1999 appeal.  Those enclosures included letters from the Fifth Army Inspector General concerning the 1999 promotion board procedures, and an 8 July 1999 letter to the PERSCOM commander.  In his 27 May 2000 letter to this Board he took exception to the treatment of his letter to the 1999 lieutenant colonel promotion board as “new” information, which required the use of the revote mechanism. 
•	He requested that the Board direct that he be placed on the next aviation battalion command list and provided justification thereof.  He provided a case summary in which he stated that this was his tenth appeal since 1992, and that he had two IG complaints, and two congressional inquiries.  He stated that he believed that the members of the OSRB and ABCMR are dedicated individuals with a difficult task; however, he contended that both Boards jealously defend internal policies to the point of losing objectivity of their net fairness; and that his case is an example of good people defending bad policies.
•	He stated that he believed that the OSRB, supported by the ABCMR, felt that fully correcting a file after an injustice was too liberal and a threat to the promotion system.  Convinced of the moral necessity to hold the line on this policy, both Boards reacted to evidence that contradicts its fairness by either remaining silent or deflecting criticism by portraying the policy as regulatory.  
•	He stated that he had asked the support of a senator’s office.  He stated that errors, irregularities, and discrepancies, place a file at risk for promotion, that his file had significant errors, irregularities, and discrepancies concerning rank, date of rank, and blocked out portions of reports that are all the result of a documented injustice, and that it was an internal policy of the OSRB, supported by the ABCMR, that prevented those errors from being removed, not Army Regulation 623-105.
•	He stated that he had presented as evidence, numerous statements from senior officers up to major general, many with selection board experience.  All have highlighted that the PERSCOM memo posted in his file designed to protect him from prejudicial treatment was violated by the promotion board.  The Chief of the Appeals and Corrections Branch confirmed that the prohibition to correcting those errors was an OSRB policy, not part of an Army Regulation. 
•	He stated that his file contained no negative discriminators, all top block OERs from captain to major, two masters degrees, resident command and general staff college, and numerous recommendations for below zone and battalion command selection. He stated that he had presented statistical evidence that showed that the promotion board selected 91 percent of his peers. There was no justification for the ABCMR to sustain its claim that there was no evidence of promotion board prejudice.
•	He urged the ABCMR to have the moral courage to acknowledge the truth that errors in a file placed his record at risk for promotion and that there was no regulatory restriction to removing errors from his file that were all caused by a documented injustice.
•	The applicant provided a 25 October 1999 letter requesting a major general’s 27 October 1998 letter, a Colonel L’s 12 August 1998 letter, and a lieutenant colonel M’s 12 August 1998 letter be included as part of his reconsideration appeal.  

•	On 15 August 2000 the ABCMR denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration (AR1999032966).

•	The Board stated that there was no evidence that the applicant was improperly considered and not recommended for promotion to lieutenant colonel and without a favorable promotion consideration, placement on the battalion commander’s list was not recommended.  The Board stated that he had not convinced the Board that he was entitled to promotion to lieutenant colonel without being considered and recommended by a selection board.  It stated that his rank on the 16 June 1986-15 June 1987 [should be 5 June 1993-4 June 1994] OER was correct, that he served as a captain and was properly rated as such, and that regardless of the official retroactive date of his promotion, he did not serve as a major during that period.  It stated that the non-prejudicial statements in his record covering the gaps in his evaluation were prepared and entered in accordance with the governing regulation, and the Board concluded that their removal was improper and would be more detrimental to the applicant’s record than leaving it intact.  The Board stated that the opinions offered in support of the applicant were speculative in nature and did not demonstrate error or injustice by the selection board, the OSRB, or this Board.  It stated that the applicant had submitted only opinions, but no evidence that indicated that the selection board ignored the non-prejudicial statements or that the revote procedure was improper.  The Board concluded that the applicant received proper and reasonable consideration of his previous appeals and that appropriate relief was provided.  The Board concluded that a formal hearing was not warranted.

•	17 August 2000 - the applicant formally protested that the ABCMR had senior management officials from PERSCOM sitting as board members.  He specifically mentioned the Chief of Management and Support.  He questioned how he could possibly expect a fair and impartial adjudication from the Board when PERSCOM has members of their senior leadership “instructing and educating” other Board members on PERSCOM’s procedures and policies.  
•	He requested the answer to questions concerning the board status of the Chief of Management and Support (Mr. “M”), and asked whether other members of PERSCOM or DCSPER sat as members of the Board and who they were.  He also requested the removal of members of the Board who were members of the very agencies that soldiers were appearing against.  He stated that the very appearance of impropriety was reason enough to act to remove personnel from that situation.  In a separate letter of the same date, he requested the status of his request to be granted a personal appearance before the Board.  He stated that since the ABCMR had allowed PERSCOM officials to sit as voting members of the Board, and since his pending appeal is against the actions of PERSCOM and the very department that the Chief of Management and Support supervises, he should be granted an opportunity to counter that official’s influence on the Board with a personal appearance.

•	15 September 2000 - the ABCMR director replied to the applicant’s letter, answering his questions, and informing him that his request for a reconsideration of the Board’s 2 September 1998 decision had been denied, and that his request for a formal hearing was also denied.

•	9 September 2000 - letter to the Board requesting that letter and an OER for the period 8 May 1999 through 7 May 2000 be incorporated as an enclosure to his 21 October 1999 appeal, requesting immediate promotion to lieutenant colonel and placement on the next aviation battalion command list.  He also reiterated his request to appear before the Board as endorsed by a senator’s 13 October 1999 letter.  He stated that he had written the Board four times in the past 11 months requesting a hearing.  He stated that he personally met with the ABCMR director on 17 August 2000 where he submitted his fourth written request for a hearing.
•	He provided information concerning a 16 August 2000 meeting with the  Chief of Management and Support, and the Chief of Appeals and Corrections, stating that it was his understanding that the former official was responsible for managing the redress system within PERSCOM.  He stated that the purpose of his meeting was to review his complaints found in his ABCMR appeal including the conflict between the OSRB and the PERSCOM Chief of Appeals and Corrections to determine who is responsible for initiating full file correction after a successful appeal.  He stated that the Chief of Management and Support fully conceded that the PERSCOM staff had “done me wrong” and made no attempt to contest a single item found in the appeal.  He acknowledged the conflict between the OSRB and the Chief of Appeals and Corrections over the full file correction.  That official also acknowledged his earlier statement that there were “scars” left over in an appellant’s file after a successful appeal.  The Chief of Management and Support stated that he would attempt to brief the PERSCOM commander, but also stated that he personally felt that despite the errors committed by PERSCOM his file was not prejudiced by the promotion board.  
•	The applicant stated that now there was no dispute with PERSCOM officials that an injustice had occurred concerning the wrongful rejection of his letter to the promotion board, and that there was no dispute with PERSCOM officials that there was a conflict with the OSRB and the PERSCOM Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch who was not allowing full file correction to take place and remove the “scars’ left over in a soldier’s file after a successful appeal.
•	He stated that he regretted having to add enclosures in a piecemeal manner; however it was entirely the result of the obstruction and willful withholding of information by PERSCOM staff officers.  He was certain that he would not have been granted an interview had it not been for the fact that a senatorial congressional inquiry was pending.
•	He stated that if the Chief of Appeals and Corrections Branch was correct that there was no regulatory restrictions to removing the “scars” in his file, all caused by a previously documented injustice, then his promotion file that appeared before the FY98 board was in error.
•	He stated that the very act of revoting his file (before the 1999 lieutenant selection board) after a “mistake” by a PERSCOM official directly violated the PERSCOM policy against using the revote mechanism to correct errors committed by staff officials.
•	He stated that PERSCOM would like the issue of full file correction and their obstruction of his appeal to simply go away.  They conceded the points, but would not take any corrective action.  He stated that PERSCOM is taking a wait-and-see approach to the outcome of his appeal.   
•	He stated that the OER that he submits with his letter demonstrated, as did the OER before it, that the vast majority of his raters and senior raters had endorsed his selection for early promotion and battalion command.
•	He stated that there were thousands of promotion files that go through a typical 20-day board and any change to their procedures might cause delays in their execution.  He stated that a pervasive “ends justifies the means” attitude develops and is manifested by the numerous examples highlighted in his appeal. His career was derailed by a documented injustice committed 13 years ago.

•	21 September 2000 letter to Mr. “M” thanking that person for his time, stating that although they disagreed on issues concerning the Army redress system, he hoped they could come to terms.  

•	27 September 2000 - the ABCMR director informed the applicant that his  9 September 2000 letter was received too late to be associated with his case before it was considered by the Board, but it would be retained and associated with any request for further reconsideration.  The director stated that it was not clear what action he anticipated would be taken as the result of his conversations with the two PERSCOM officials, and noted that there was no written substantiation of the contention of those conversations.  He was informed that his request for a formal hearing had been noted. 

•	6 December 2000 -  in a memorandum to the Chief, Appeals and Corrections Branch of PERSCOM, the President of the OSRB stated that the applicant’s request [to include a memorandum to the performance fiche of his OMPF) had been approved and that his memorandums of        14 and 21 September 2000 and 29 November 2000 had been moved to the restricted portion of his OMPF.  

•	9 December 2000 - the Director of Military Personnel Management informed the applicant that she had reviewed his request to place a memorandum in the performance portion of his OMF clarifying the adjustment of his date of rank to major, as an exception to policy.  She stated that the company command OER that he received as a captain (930605-940604) was both administratively accurate and substantively correct, and that the evidence that he provided and that the OSRB obtained from his rating officials clearly and convincingly validated that rating rendered was based on his demonstrated duty performance as a captain.  She stated that, to clarify the issue he raised on his adjusted date of rank to major (931101), the action occurred as a result of his subsequent successful appeal actions several months after the above contested rating period; and that the contested captain OER was unrelated to the corrective actions taken (PERSCOM Memo 10 June 1996) on two previous OERs (1986 and 1987) which resulted in his reconsideration for and selection to major and a later ABCMR decision directing his attendance at the resident CGSC.  She stated that his appeal requesting correction of the date of rank on his first major’s evaluation report (940605-950604) following CGSC attendance could not be located. She stated that PERSCOM Appeals and Corrections Branch had reviewed his contention and the minor administrative error had been corrected.  She stated that a copy of the memorandum would be added to the performance portion of his OMPF.    

•	30 January 2001 – letter to the applicant in which the ABCMR director made reference to his 9 September 2000 application for another reconsideration of his earlier appeals for correction of military records.  He was informed that his request was reconsideration was denied under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-15b (AR2000048555).

•	17 July 2001 -  the applicant was notified of his selection for continued military service on active duty, allowing him to continue service until he reached 24 years of active commissioned service.  The applicant accepted the period of retention to 24 years.    

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions, notwithstanding, there is no evidence that selection board members did not select him for promotion to lieutenant colonel because of the document altering his evaluation reports, or because of the date of rank error on one evaluation report.  The Board assumes, that selection board members, senior officers, perform their duties fairly, without prejudice or partiality, and have the experience to recognize that his two reports were altered because of some injustice to him.  He has not shown that the selection boards looked on his altered reports unfavorably or prejudicially.  In this respect, the applicant has submitted no evidence to cause this Board to refute the previous Board decisions.  The Board has corrected his record as much as it is possible to do so based on the evidence available to it. 
2.  The applicant has received all due consideration by PERSCOM, the OSRB, and by this Board, with respect to his previous appeals.  As unsatisfactory as his situation is to him, the Board believes that it has done as much as possible for him as reflected in its past decisions.  His continued dissatisfaction with the decisions made on his previous appeals cannot be reconciled.  

3.  Concerning his latest submission, the Board agrees with the 5 March 2001 OSRB decision that the 6 December 2000 DMPM memorandum did not strengthen his official record, and that there was no evidence that the lack of the memorandum prejudiced his OMPF by selection boards.  Nonetheless, there appears to be no explanation for the decision by the DMPM to issue the memorandum if not to warrant a reconsideration board.  The applicant states that the DMPM could have elected not to meet with him or could have disapproved his request for an exception to policy.  Instead, she issued the corrective memorandum, intending that a reconsideration board would result.  The Board accepts this reasoning.

4.  Consequently, although there is no error or injustice done to the applicant, the Board believes that in all fairness, the applicant should be reconsidered for promotion to lieutenant colonel under the appropriate selection board criteria, e.g., 1998, 1999, 2000, etc. because of the introduction of the DMPM memorandum; and if selected, that his records be further corrected by showing that he was promoted to lieutenant colonel with the appropriate date of rank. 

5.  The applicant’s request that the 6 December 2000 DMPM memorandum be replaced by one recommended by a retired brigadier general is not accepted.  The DMPM memorandum, a document directed to be placed in the applicant’s official file, is an exception to policy, not granted soldiers in like situations as the applicant.  To grant his request, is to give him a further, and an uncalled for, advantage over those soldiers, and to put the stamp of approval on any request by any person to change an official document to his liking.  The applicant’s displeasure with the wording of the DMPM memorandum is not good reason to grant his request.    

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by submitting the applicant’s records before a duly constituted special selection board for reconsideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel under the criteria of any selection board in which his record did not include the December 2000 DMPM memorandum; and if selected, that his records be further corrected by showing that he was promoted to lieutenant colonel with the appropriate date of rank.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__SAC __  __RKS  _  __AU ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Samuel A. Crumpler____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065032	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.