| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his record be corrected to show that he was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 26 February 1999 in lieu of 26 April 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: Amended orders directing him to proceed on temporary duty to Fort Belvoir, Virginia to attend the Army Management Staff College prevented him from reporting as per the original orders [to Arlington, Virginia] with an earlier reporting date. Consequently, he was not promoted because he was in a school status and not serving in a lieutenant colonel position.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 7 May 1980. The applicant is an AGR (Active Guard/Reserve) officer who was promoted to major on 26 November 1992.
On 13 November 1998, the applicant then assigned to Headquarters, Third U.S. Army, Fort McPherson, Georgia, as an Operations Officer, was assigned by the Army Reserve Personnel Command to the Army Reserve Support Center at Arlington, Virginia with a reporting date of 1 March 1999.
The order effecting the assignment was amended on two occasions. The first amendment, dated 15 December 1998, changed the reporting date to 26 April 1999, and the second, dated 21 April 1999, changed his assignment to Headquarters, Army Reserve Command at Fort McPherson, with duty as the executive officer.
Between the dates of those two amendments, an order was published by the Army Reserve Personnel Command in St. Louis, and dated 18 December 1998, directing the applicant to proceed on temporary duty to Fort Belvoir to attend the Army Management Staff College with a proceed date of 11 January 1999. The applicant completed the Army Sustaining Base Leadership and Management course at that college on 2 April 1999.
On 25 March 1999 the Total Army Personnel Command at St. Louis notified the applicant that he had been selected for promotion by a Reserve Components Selection Board.
On 26 April 1999 the applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel.
Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officer of the Army National Guard of the United States and the Army Reserve. Paragraph 4-15 states in effect, that officers serving on active duty in an AGR status may be promoted to a higher grade provided the duty assignment/attachment of the officer requires a higher grade than that currently held by the officer. Effective date of promotion of AGR officers will be as shown in paragraph 4-21.
Paragraph 4-21 states in effect, that AGR officers selected by a mandatory board will be promoted provided they are assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade. An AGR officer who is selected for promotion by a mandatory board, but who is not assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade will be promoted on the date of assignment/attachment to the higher graded position.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. Absent information to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant reported to his assignment with the Army Reserve Command on 26 April 1999 and that he was assigned to a position in the grade of lieutenant colonel; consequently, his promotion on that date.
2. The Board notes that his assignment order was amended not only to change his reporting date, but also to change his unit of assignment to the Army Reserve Command, albeit the order was not published until five days prior to his reporting date. In December 1998, the Army Reserve Personnel Command, aware of the change of the assignment, and apparently because of the requirements of his new assignment, sent him to school for 83 days.
3. The applicant was promoted when he should have been promoted, in accordance with the provisions of the regulation. There is no error or injustice.
4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__MHM __KAN__ __DPH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066636 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020514 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.04 |
| 2. | 131.05 |
| 3. | 21 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053043C070420
On 19 July 1996, 17 July 1997, and 27 May 1998, the applicant was notified by letter, signed by the IDARNG Adjutant General, that he had been considered by annual selective retention boards which recommended him among the best qualified for continued retention in the IDARNG. The National Guard Bureau Personnel Division rendered an opinion that the applicant’s record was properly reviewed by a State Adjutant General Selective Retention Board and he was not selected for retention. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106309C070208
She also states that the Board in its original conclusions stated that promotion to LTC would require seven years of service as a MAJ and adjusting her MAJ date of rank to 1 November 1997 would still not make her eligible for promotion to LTC. In its original conclusions, the Board found the applicant applied for accession into the AGR program prior to the release of the 1997 DA MAJ RCSB and elected to delay her promotion by the Troop Program Unit (TPU) in which she was serving in order to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026624
It is in the interest of justice to consider this case because: * It involves long-term institutional discrimination * It requires promotion and assignment data and statistics for proof * The National Guard Bureau (NGB) was often unresponsive to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and misdirected and/or delayed replies for many months * Key witness testimony was delayed * Counsel was delayed due to his own disability * The State Senator has concerns about discrimination within the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001463C080213
The applicant requests that his name be submitted to the U. S. Senate for confirmation as a colonel (COL), O-6 effective 1 October 2003; following confirmation, that his records be corrected to indicate that as a result of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Tour Advisory Review Panel (TARP)/Career Field Review that recommended Army National Guard (ARNG) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Title 10 officers for assignment and promotion during fiscal year 2004 (FY04) that his name be listed among those...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001463
The applicant requests that his name be submitted to the U. S. Senate for confirmation as a colonel (COL), O-6 effective 1 October 2003; following confirmation, that his records be corrected to indicate that as a result of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Tour Advisory Review Panel (TARP)/Career Field Review that recommended Army National Guard (ARNG) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Title 10 officers for assignment and promotion during fiscal year 2004 (FY04) that his name be listed among those...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001463
The applicant requests that his name be submitted to the U. S. Senate for confirmation as a colonel (COL), O-6 effective 1 October 2003; following confirmation, that his records be corrected to indicate that as a result of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Tour Advisory Review Panel (TARP)/Career Field Review that recommended Army National Guard (ARNG) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Title 10 officers for assignment and promotion during fiscal year 2004 (FY04) that his name be listed among those...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021246
On 3 January 2012 in a response to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated he was supplying documentation to show he was assigned to an LTC position on 28 January 1998 and he had a current physical on file at that time. The evidence of record shows the 2003 SSB selected the applicant for promotion to LTC under the 1997 LTC APL board criteria. The Chief, Promotions, HRC, opined that if documentation was provided to verify the applicant was assigned to an LTC position prior to 29 May 1998...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017983C070206
The applicant also states that prior to his retirement, in December 2002, the unit had a drill with all members of the unit present, including some that he had not seen before. The USARC determined that the applicant filled a colonel position at the State Department unit while serving as a lieutenant colonel. Crediting the applicant with a qualifying year, as discussed above, and payment of the difference in pay between a lieutenant colonel and colonel for creditable periods of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019825
He contends that as an ARNG AGR officer, he was authorized DORs determined as follows in accordance with (IAW) paragraphs 4-15 and 4-19d of Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), effective 1 October 1994 for his promotion to MAJ and 1 February 1998 for his promotion to LTC as follows: a. Paragraph 4-15 provides that the Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) is the date the officer meets the eligibility criteria for promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009543C071113
The result would have been that he would have been promoted to Colonel prior to the conduct of the 2003 Mandatory Promotion Board from Lieutenant Colonel to Colonel. The applicant believes his discussion that was provided to the ABCMR in response to the unfavorable opinion submitted to this Board from the National Guard Bureau shows that the ABCMR should now grant full relief to his request for promotion to colonel. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has failed to provide...