IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130000982 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 that his effective date and date of rank (DOR) for promotion to colonel be changed to 15 December 2011. 2. The applicant states that he was originally promoted to the rank of colonel by the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) on 15 December 2011; however, he was denied Federal Recognition by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and his promotion orders were subsequently revoked. He goes on to state that he was subsequently selected for promotion by a selection board that convened in May 2012 and was promoted to the rank of colonel on 28 August 2012. He continues by stating that he served in an O-6 position from 21 October 2011 and should have been promoted to the rank of colonel effective 15 December 2011. 3. The applicant provides copies of his most recent officer evaluation report (OER), Federal Recognition orders for promotion to colonel, State promotion orders to colonel, his promotion recommendation and a copy of his officer record brief (ORB). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was commissioned as a Medical Corps captain in the TXARNG on 17 December 2004. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel on 8 February 2008. 2. On 15 December 2011 orders were published by the TXARNG promoting him to the rank of colonel effective 15 December 2011. On 13 April 2012 those orders were revoked. 3. On 10 September 2012 the applicant’s unit submitted a recommendation for promotion of the applicant in the TXARNG. 4. On 23 October 2012, Special Orders Number 378 AR issued by the NGB granted the applicant Federal Recognition in the rank of colonel effective 28 August 2012. 5. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB which recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request to adjust his effective date and DOR for promotion to colonel from 28 August 2012 to 15 December 2011. Officials at the NGB opined that at the time the TXARNG promoted the applicant to the rank of colonel on 15 December 2011, the state was over its limit of colonel/O6 authorizations and the request for Federal Recognition was returned. The applicant was promoted to the rank of colonel in August 2012 based on the retirement of another Soldier serving in the rank of colonel. 6. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he responded with a two-page rebuttal to the effect that his promotion was unjustly delayed over 10 months after his appointment on 21 October 2011 as Deputy Commander for Clinical Services for Texas Medical Command. He goes on to state that at least 12 other officers were Federally Recognized at O6, mostly through unit vacancy promotions and he provides their names and dates of promotion. He contends that the promotion of the 12 other officers during the period of November 2011 and June 2012 forms the basis for the injustice imposed upon him. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that he should have been granted Federal Recognition for his promotion to colonel on 15 December 2011 has been noted and appears to lack merit. 2. While the applicant claims that 12 officers were granted Federal Recognition for promotion to the rank of colonel during the period of November 2011 and June 2012, that in itself does not imply that there was an authorization to promote him at the time his Federal Recognition was submitted or that they occupied the same area of concentration as the applicant. 3. Vacancy promotions are based on a specific specialty and grade and while others may have been promoted, it simply may have been a matter of timing and the specifics involved with the position. 4. In any event, it was his command’s responsibility to ensure that vacancies existed for his specialty and grade and that promotion vacancy were available for him to be promoted. In the applicant’s case, he was promoted when another colonel retired and opened up a vacancy for promotion. 5. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that he was improperly denied Federal Recognition in December 2011 and absent such evidence, there appears to be no basis to grant his request to adjust his effective date of promotion or DOR. 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) AR20130000982 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130000982 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1