IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090010482 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests consideration for promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5). 2. The applicant states he should be considered because he was assigned to a valid Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) position. His area of concentration (AOC), 670A (Health Service Maintenance Technician), was not on the list of those specialties to be considered by the Reserve Components Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Promotion Selection Board. He had been previously informed that he would be considered. Another Soldier was considered and selected even though there was no position in his unit. The other Soldier was subsequently informed that his selection was erroneous. 3. The applicant provides, in support of his request, his 2 July 2008 assignment orders; Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 08-316, issued on 11 December 2008); and email traffic, dated between 6 April and 11 June 2009. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officer, is on active duty in the AGR program. He was not considered for promotion by the FY 2009 promotion board. 2. In the email traffic provided by the applicant, he was advised to contact the point of contact (POC) at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC), St. Louis, MO to request a Special Selection Board (SSB) if he felt he was erroneously omitted from consideration for promotion. The applicant followed through with an email to the USAHRC POC, who in turn responded to the applicant. The POC stated that no error had been made, that consideration of AOC 670A officers for CW5 was not considered necessary. 3. During the processing of this case, on 6 July 2009, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Special Action Branch, DA Promotions, USAHRC, St. Louis, MO. The advisory official noted that the applicant's AOC was a specialty that was not among the only five categories that were considered by the 2009 board. He opined that no mistake had been made and recommended denial of the applicant's request. 4. On 2 October 2009, a copy of the advisory opinion was furnished to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. No response was received. 5. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the USAR. Chapter 3 outlines board schedules and procedures. Paragraph 3-4 provides guidance on notices of consideration. It states, in pertinent part, that the notice of consideration will be dispatched at least 90 days before the convening date of the board. Officers will be directed to review their records and submit copies of missing documents or other corrections. 6. MILPER Message Number 08-316 announced the zones of consideration and AOCs of consideration for the FY 2009 AGR CW5 Promotion Selection Board. AOC 670A was not one of the AOCs to be considered. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant states his AOC was not included on the list to be considered by the 2009 board and he requests consideration by an SSB. 2. Promotions in the applicant's AOC were not considered in accordance with the referenced MILPER Message 08-316. Whether or not the applicant was assigned to a valid AGR CW5 position, this Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the Army force structure authorities who determine if additional personnel in higher grades are needed. Those authorities are better aware of planned force structure changes that may affect grade/AOC requirements. As there was no error, he is not entitled to consideration by an SSB. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X___ ____X____ 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. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090010482 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090010482 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1