IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005295 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005295 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005295 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 his records be considered for promotion to major (MAJ) by a special selection board (SSB). 2. He states he was a non-select for promotion to MAJ by the Army Medical Specialist Corps selection board that convened in August 2015. He requested an SSB on 24 February 2016 based on a material error, but the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) denied his request. He explains that his board file gave the appearance he was wearing a combat award without documentation. He opines that if the board that failed to recommend him for promotion to MAJ considered this material error, there would have been a reasonable chance that the Board would have recommended him for promotion. While reviewing his board file, he realized his award orders for the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) were not in his board file and his DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflecting the correct award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) was not in his board file. 3. He provides: * Self-authored statement * Orders 012-019, dated 20 July 2002 * Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 15-137, issued on 6 May 2015 * Memorandum, subject: Instructions for the Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) MAJ, Army Nurse Corps (AN), Medical Service Corps (MS) Army Medical Specialist (SP) Corps and Veterinary Corps (VC) Promotion Selection Boards, dated 8 June 2015 * Memorandum, subject: [Applicant] Board File, dated 27 July 2015 * DD Form 215 * Email CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. After having prior enlisted service in the U.S. Army Reserve, on 31 March 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He served in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) from 23 April to 24 June 2002 and 9 April to 21 September 2003. 2. Permanent Orders 012-019, issued by Department of Defense, Combined/Joint Task Force, OEF, Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, dated 20 July 2002, awarded the applicant the CMB for engaging in active ground combat on 17 June 2002. 3. He served 6 years, 9 months, and 18 days on active duty this period and he was honorably discharged on 18 January 2004. His DD Form 214 shows award of the CMB. 4. On 31 May 2006, he was issued a DD Form 215 showing the CMB was deleted from his DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 January 2004 and the CIB was added. 5. On 2 June 2006, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the Army Medical Specialist Corps and he executed his oath of office on 8 September 2006. 6. On 11 March 2008, he was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT). He was subsequently promoted to captain (CPT) on 1 October 2009. 7. MILPER Message Number 15-137, issued on 6 May 2015, stated a selection board would convene on 10 August 2015 to consider eligible CPTs on the active duty list (ADL) for promotion to MAJ. It further stated, in pertinent part: a. All officers in the zones of consideration may, if desired, submit correspondence to the president of the board. Individual memoranda should include only those matters deemed important in the consideration of an officer's record. They should be addressed to the president of the board and arrive prior to the convening date of the board. b. Officers must review and certify their board files electronically through My Board File (MBF). After reviewing MBF, officers must select one of the following three options: * "I have not viewed the documents" * "I certify that the information in my board file is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge" * "I have reviewed the information in my board file and I will take action and submit the following corrections/changes to my file" c. Officers needing assistance should contact their career/branch manager to make corrections to update MBF. All career/branch managers have the ability, while MBF is open, to pull a new Department of the Army photo and a new Officer Record Brief (ORB), as needed. 8. In an email, dated 21 July 2015, a representative from the applicant's branch, U.S. Army HRC, recommended that someone in the applicant's chain of command write a memorandum explaining the situation and state that the applicant was authorized the CIB. The representative stated HRC personnel were not authorized to a write a memorandum for placement in his official file. 9. On 27 July 2015, as requested, the Division Surgeon, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO, submitted a memorandum to the President, Army Medical Specialist Corps Promotion Selection Board. The memorandum explained the ORB and DA Photograph indicated the applicant was awarded the CIB. However, there were no award orders for the CIB in the applicant's board file. The applicant was awarded the CMB on 20 July 2002 while serving as a Special Forces Medic in military occupational specialty 18D (Special Operation Medical Sergeant). The CMB was later rescinded and he was awarded the CIB on 31 May 2006 through a DD Form 215. 10. On 29 February 2016, an SSB representative, Personnel Accountability Branch, HRC, responded by email to the applicant's request for an SSB. He stated the applicant's request for an SSB was denied. A review of his board file indicated on 3 August 2015 he viewed and certified his board file. He further stated that, unfortunately, there was no way to determine why he was not selected for promotion since the statutory requirements in Title 10, U.S. Code, prevent disclosure of board proceedings. The decision to recommend an officer for promotion was based on the selection board's collective judgment as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered. The decision not to select the applicant for promotion at this time did not mean he was not qualified; rather it was indicative of the very competitive nature of the promotion system. 11. The applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) does not contain his board file or a copy of his DD Form 215. 12. The applicant's ORB shows award of the CIB. 13. On 8 June 2016, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from the Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, HRC, who recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for an SSB. The representative reiterates the information contained in the email dated 29 February 2016. Additionally, the representative states: a. All promotion selection board announcements allow for a considerable amount of time for every officer to review and update their board files as they see fit. They also allow the officer an opportunity (if desired) to submit correspondence to the President of the board and its members to address any issues he or she feels is important during consideration. b. In addition, each promotion board MILPER message states that communications or memoranda of recommendation from other parties on behalf of officers eligible for consideration will not be provided to the board unless forwarded as an enclosure to a memorandum to the board from the officer being considered. Failure to provide communication per instructions does not constitute material unfairness or a material error to be reconsidered for promotion by an SSB. 14. On 14 June 2016, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgement and response. The applicant did not respond. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) provides the Army's policies and procedures on officer promotions. Chapter 7 provides guidance on SSBs. It states SSBs may be convened (discretionary) to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when DA discovers that the officer was not considered by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error; the board that considered an officer acted contrary to law or made a material error; or the board that considered the officer did not have before it some material information. Reconsideration will normally not be granted when, in pertinent part, one of the following occurs: a. An administrative error was immaterial, or the officer, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in the ORB or OMPF. The ORB is a summary document of information generally available elsewhere in the officer’s record. It is the officer’s responsibility to review his or her ORB and OMPF before the board convenes and to notify the board, in writing, of possible administrative deficiencies in them. b. Letters of appreciation, commendation, or other commendatory data for awards below the Silver Star are missing from the officer’s OMPF. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant maintains, in effect, that the absence of orders reflecting the award of the CIB was a material error, which qualifies him for an SSB. 2. The evidence shows on 31 May 2006, a DD Form 215 was issued deleting the CMB and adding the CIB to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 January 2004. 3. In denying the applicant's request for an SSB, HRC concluded that the applicant viewed and certified his board file on 3 August 2015. It is also noted that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence in correcting the error in his OMPF since the DD Form 215 was issued in 2006. Additionally, HRC stated there is no way to determine why he was not selected for promotion since the statutory requirements prevent disclosure of board proceedings. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005295 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005295 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2