informing him of his conditional selection, when he had 9 months notice that the Army expected that Captains eligible for promotion to Major should have their courses completed by September, 1974.
Further, petitioner could have obtained notice of his selection if he was truly interested. The results of the April, 1974 Board were published in AR 624-2 (Ex C pg 37). Since an officer is to be aware of all such publications, the petitioner is held to have had actual notice of his selection.
The petitioner next argues that he was misinformed as to the date he had to complete his education by Warrant Officer Dreher. This is simply a misinterpretation by petitioner of what he was told. Petitioner was told that " if " the April, 1975 promotion board was run as the April, 1975 board had been, he would have until September, 1975 to complete his courses. That petitioner took this to mean he need not complete his courses until September, 1975 is not the Army's fault. Petitioner could have investigated the matter on his own, rather than do nothing until it was too late.
The petitioner's final complaint stems from the temporary closing of the Army Correspondence School on February, 1975. Petitioner claims that he discovered that he had to complete his education by April 1975 in February, 1975 and made every attempt to get the courses needed (Ex C pg 40). Although the school kept telling students it would be able to furnish the needed material it could not and in petitioner's case, it did not.
There is no doubt that had the school not closed down, petitioner would have had time to complete his courses. But this was not an injustice as the petitioner claims. Rather any harm that the closing caused petitioner was caused by petitioner's own delays in earlier years especially since he knew he had been passed over in 1974, and knew he had not finished his courses.
The petitioner had from 1968 to work on his educational requirements. Yet by his own admission he waited until he had only 2 months left to complete the final 20% of his courses. He cannot now blame the Army because his need coincided with the same two months when the school was closed. Petitioner chose to do the final 20% of the work when he had more than seven years to complete it. Had petitioner shown a bit more diligence earlier in that period he would not have found himself in the situation he was upon the closing of the school.
In any event, these arguments go to a matter of discretion, the authority to exercise which is in the Board, not in the court. The facts clearly show that there was substantial evidence to support the Board in exercising its discretion in the way it did, and even if this court were of a view that it should have been exercised the other way, which it is not, it could not set aside the result below.
Accordingly, it is found that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the holding of the Board that "he simply waited too long to make an effort to complete the requirements".
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.