2. In effect, the applicant requests that his promotion to first lieutenant be effective on 22 June 1994.
3. He states that he was not promoted on his eligibility date. He had been told at the time that since he was a Guardsman, he could not be promoted until he had been on active duty for a year. Upon investigation, he discovered that the information he had received was false and he had been eligible for promotion upon completion of 3 years of commissioned service.
4. His military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 November 1983 and was released from active duty on 30 October 1987. He then served in an enlisted status in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and was commissioned as a second lieutenant, ARNG, on 23 June 1991. He entered on active duty on 8 March 1994 for the purpose of completing the officer basic course for medical department officers. Apparently, while still on active duty, orders were issued obligating the applicant to serve an additional 3 years of active duty.
5. On 7 August 1995 orders were issued promoting the applicant to first lieutenant effective 4 August 1995.
6. On 28 July 1995 a memorandum was sent from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to the applicants active Army command. In that memorandum, the PERSCOM stated that the applicant attained promotion eligibility to first lieutenant on 22 June 1994, and that he should submit an application to the Board to correct his date of promotion.
7. In the processing of this case, the staff of the Board contacted the applicants former state Adjutant General and determined that the applicant had obtained his commission through Officer Candidate School (OCS).
8. Army Regulation 600-8-29, paragraph 2-1, states that second lieutenants who receive their commission due to their completion of OCS will be given an active duty date of rank as the date they accepted their initial appointment. Table 3-2 of this regulation, step 9, states that a second lieutenants promotion eligibility date is 3 years from his or her date of commission, less 1 day.
9. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM. The PERSCOM confirmed that the applicant was eligible for promotion to first lieutenant on 22 June 1994 and, in effect, recommended that his application be approved.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was eligible for promotion to first lieutenant on 22 June 1994.
2. His record does not contain any documentation which would indicate that his promotion was intentionally denied or delayed for cause.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicants records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to first lieutenant effective 22 June 1994 with the same date of rank.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017174C070206
In addition, due to the fact that the applicant was not assigned to either the MDARNG or the WIARNG on 17 August 2004, neither headquarters had the authority to promote him on that date. In the advisory opinion the official indicates that the applicant became eligible for promotion to 1LT on 17 August 2004 and adds, in effect, for reasons that can not be determined, the applicant was not promoted when he became eligible for promotion to 1LT. The evidence of records shows that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069937C070402
The applicant’s military records show that he served as an enlisted member of the Army National Guard in Pennsylvania and then New Jersey, from 24 April 1980 through 26 June 1987. The applicant was correctly discharged according to regulation and law for two-time nonselection for promotion to CPT and is not eligible to be reinstated in the Reserve as an officer beyond the correction date of 12 February 2001 above, although he may be eligible to enlist which can be determined by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091205C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion consideration to major under the criteria 1998 through 2000 by a United States Army Reserve (USAR) promotion board and promotion to major in the USAR. The Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, verified the applicant is currently still in an active duty status and has been considered and selected for promotion to major by a active duty promotion board. The regulation further specifies that an officer who has an established date for removal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011116
Counsel also states that, if reasonably applied, Army regulations concerning tattoos did not preclude the applicant's service as a commissioned officer in 1998 or at any time thereafter. The evidence of record further shows that the second board of officers recommended the applicant be given the opportunity to have enough tattoos removed at Army expense to be in compliance with the Army tattoo policy. However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant and Counsel fail to provide...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009864C070208
LaVerne Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. During the processing of this application, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau who opines that Army Regulation 135-175 does state that an officer who has completed his statutory military service obligation will be discharged for failure to be selected for promotion after second consideration by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009121C070205
At the time of his selection for promotion to major on 5 March 1991, he was an ARNG officer. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to major while on active duty. The applicant should have been considered for promotion to major by a mandatory Reserve promotion board one year after the date of his transfer to the IRR in 1994 and again in 1995.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091294C070212
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 reinstated the waiver, but the applicant did not find out about it until after he was promoted on 1 October 2002. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) which states, in essence, that there was no waiver authority in effect at the time of the applicant's promotion eligibility to Captain. It would appear that the intent of Congress was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061475C070421
The applicant states that his DD Form 214 incorrectly shows he was released from active duty due to “Failure of Selection – Permanent Promotion”. His DD Form 214 shows he was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3, section XXVI, for failure of selection – permanent promotion. Army Regulation 135-215 (Officer Periods of Service on Active Duty) provides for officers of the Reserve Components to serve on extended active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075153C070403
The applicant requests that his nonselections for promotion to major by the 1998 and 1999 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) be removed from his records. On 2 August 1998, the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM, issued a memorandum notifying the applicant, through the Mississippi ARNG, that he had been considered and not selected for promotion to major based on the lack of required military education by a board that convened on 9 March 1998. BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106064C070208
Army Regulation 135-175 states, in pertinent part, that officers in the grade of first lieutenant, captain, or major, who completed their statutory military obligation, will be discharged for failure to be selected for promotion after the second consideration by a Department of the Army Reserve Components Selection Board. Army Regulation 350-100 (Officer Active Duty Service Obligations) states, in pertinent part, that officers graduating from the Special Forces Detachment Officer...