RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 January 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070016676 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Gerald J. Purcell Chairperson Mr. Donald L. Lewy Member Mr. David W. Tucker Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests promotion reconsideration to lieutenant colonel. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his Official Military Personnel Record (OMPF) contained material error when it was considered by the lieutenant colonel promotion board. This material error was due to the late filing of his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period from 31 January 2006 to 30 January 2007. He therefore contends that, based on this material error, he was not selected for promotion. 3. The applicant provides a copy of the subject OER and memoranda to and from the Chief, Promotions Branch, concerning promotion reconsideration. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving on active duty as a major, with a date of rank 1 June 2002. 2. On 30 May 1991, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Armor, in the Regular Army. He served through a series of assignments and was promoted to major with a date of rank and effective date of 1 June 2002. 3. The applicant was considered and non-selected by the Fiscal Year 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board. Military Personnel Message 07-001, paragraph 3A required that all mandatory and optional OER's must have been received, error free, in the Evaluation Reports Branch no later than 23 February 2007, in order to be considered by this promotion selection board. 4. On 1 March 2007, the applicant and his immediate chain of command, signed his annual OER for the period from 31 January 2006 to 30 January 2007. This report was a center of mass evaluation recommending him for promotion to lieutenant colonel and selection for battalion command. The report was received electronically that same day at Headquarters, Department of the Army. 5. On 4 October 2007, the applicant, in a memorandum to the Commander, Human Resources Command, requested reconsideration of his non-selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel. He cited the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) that permit officers to request promotion reconsideration when a material error is discovered in their OMPF at the time they were non-selected. He contended that a material error did exist in his OMPF. He stated that his OER was submitted after the required date of 23 February 2007, due to circumstances beyond his control. 6. On 24 October 2007, the Chief, Promotions Branch, Human Resources Command, responded to the applicant's request for promotion reconsideration. The applicant was informed that promotion reconsideration is authorized under Title 10, United States Code, and is approved only for non-selected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. It defined a material error as being of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), had it been corrected at the time the individual was considered by the board that failed to recommend him or her for promotion, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the individual would have been selected for promotion. In the applicant's case, the subject OER was processed by the Human Resources Command Evaluations Reports Branch on 1 March 2007. 7. Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) provides, in pertinent part, that OER's will be reviewed to insure they are complete and administratively correct, and that they are forwarded in such time as to reach Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) within 90 days of the report's through date. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The available evidence clearly shows that an annual OER was rendered on the applicant for the period from 31 January 2006 through 30 January 2007; that it was signed by the rating chain and the applicant on 1 March 2007; and that it was forwarded to HQDA that same day. This OER was not late and was not erroneous. There is no evidence of error or injustice. 2. There is no clear evidence showing that had this report been in the applicant's OMPF at the time of his non-selection for promotion, he would have been selected. 3. The applicant's request for promotion reconsideration was denied by the Promotions Branch based on the judgment that the omission of the subject OER from his OMPF did not constitute a material error. The applicant has not provided a sufficiently convincing argument to overcome his denied request for promotion reconsideration. 4. In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _ DWT___ __DLL __ __GJP __ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __ Gerald J. Purcell _____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070016676 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20080124 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 131 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.