MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           16 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065638

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  In effect, that she be reconsidered for promotion to the rank and pay grade of major/0-4 (MAJ/0-4).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she honorably served on active duty for 
10 years, and that upon her release from active duty (REFRAD), she was not informed that she would be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) with continued status as an officer.  She states that her home of record (HOR) has not changed since her REFRAD, but she never received information pertaining to her Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) status in the United States Army Reserve (USAR), either at the time of her separation from active duty or through the present.  Finally, she states that she never received information in regard to her promotion consideration or non-selection while in the IRR.  For these reasons, the applicant requests the opportunity to correct any and all deficiencies concerning the promotion matter.  Given she was placed in the IRR without knowledge of it, she believes it would be appropriate for her to have the chance to resolve any issue or problems that have been identified regarding her twice being non-selected for promotion.  In support of her application, she provides a copy of her separation document (DD Form 214) and a letter, dated 
8 November 2000, signed by the Chief, Appointments, US Total Army Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri.  

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

On 3 November 1989, the applicant was honorably REFRAD under the provisions of paragraph 3-49a, Army Regulation 635-100, by reason of failure to meet minimum standards of retention.  At the time of her separation, she had completed a total of 10 years, 3 months, and 19 days of active military service. 

The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant with her signature on the date of her separation, confirms that at the time of his separation she held the rank of captain and that she was serving in the primary specialty 44A (Finance).  It also shows that during her active duty tenure she earned the following awards and decorations:  Army Commendation Medal (1st Award); Army Achievement Medal; Army Service Ribbon; and Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 3.  

The applicant’s self authenticated DD Form 214 also confirms, in Item 
9 (Command To Which Transferred), that she was she was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinf) ARPERSCOM, 9700 Page Blvd, ST Louis, Missouri, which is the IRR.  

Orders Number 307-256, dated 3 November 1989, issued by Headquarters, US Army Training Center and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, New Jersey, authorized the applicant’s REFRAD on 3 November 1989, and directed her reassignment to the USAR Control Group, IRR, until the completion of her military service obligation.  The additional instructions contained in this order informed the applicant that while she was not required to physically report to the IRR Control Group, she was required to keep them informed of her address by mail.  

The record shows that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to MAJ/0-4 by both the 1991 and 1992 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB).  As authorized by regulation, the reasons for the applicant’s non-selection were not divulged by the promotion boards, except to confirm that the non-selection was not due to a lack of military education.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File was complete and there is no evidence to suggest a material error was present at the time it was reviewed during her promotion consideration by the 1991 and 1992 RCSB.  

An ARPERSCOM memorandum, dated 6 May 1992, subject:  Options Upon Nonselection for Promotion After Second Consideration, informed the applicant of the options available to her as a result of her nonselection for promotion.  The applicant was required to respond to the memorandum and informed that her failure to do so would result in her being discharged in accordance with regulatory guidance.

Orders Number D-08-238440, dated 22 August 1992, issued by ARPERSCOM, confirms the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR, effective 
24 July 1991. 

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  It specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual's non-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.  Further, 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.

Army Regulation 135-175 prescribes the policies and procedures for the separation of Reserve officers.  It provides, in pertinent part, that individuals twice not selected for promotion to MAJ/0-4 will be discharged unless eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve or retention in the active Reserve based on having completed over 18, but less than 20 years of qualifying service. 
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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that she was unaware that she was transferred to the IRR and as a result, she should have the opportunity to address her twice being non-selected for promotion to MAJ/0-4.  However, the evidence of record confirms that she was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), ARPERSCOM, upon her REFRAD.  She was notified of this transfer to the IRR in the DD Form 214 issued to her upon her separation from active duty, which she authenticated with her signature.  In addition, this assignment to the IRR to complete her military service obligation was also codified in her separation orders, which authorized her REFRAD and reassignment to the USAR Control Group.  Therefore, the Board concludes that she was properly notified of her transfer to the IRR upon her REFRAD. 

2.  Implicit in the Army's promotion system is the universally accepted and frequently discussed principle that officers have a responsibility for their own careers.  The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such as RCSB dates and promotion zones are widely published in official, quasi-official and unofficial publications, and in official communications.  Given the applicant was transferred to the IRR in the rank of captain and could be selected for promotion to MAJ/0-4, it was her responsibility to know that she would be considered for promotion by a RCSB and to ensure that her record would present her career and qualifications to that board in the best possible light.  

3.  In addition, there is no evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that even suggests that a material error existed in her OMPF at the time it was reviewed during her promotion consideration by the 1991 and 1992 RCSBs.  Therefore, the Board concludes there is no error or injustice related to her promotion consideration or non-selection for promotion to MAJ/0-4 and it concludes that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support the requested relief.

4.  The record does not contain evidence nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that her records were incomplete and without material error when reviewed by the RCSB.

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

__INW__  __MMD__  __JTM___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065638	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.