| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that a U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 7 May 1998,
Subject: Notification of Promotion Status, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) on 29 May 1995. Less than two years later, his records were mistakenly placed before a promotion selection board and he was erroneously considered for promotion to captain (CPT) in 1997. In 1998, he missed the cut-off for promotion consideration by 13 days, and was not able to be considered for promotion until 1999. He claims that this non-select memorandum in his records will negatively affect his consideration for promotion to higher grades and could be used as a discriminator between he and other qualified candidates.
4. The applicant’s military records show that as of the date of his application to this Board, he was still serving as a CPT in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).
5. On 24 April 1995, the United States Army Reserve Command (USARC) published a promotion memorandum that authorized the applicant’s promotion to the rank of 1LT, effective 29 May 1995.
6. On 7 May 1998, the promotion status memorandum in question was published by PERSCOM, St. Louis. It indicated that the applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to CPT.
7. On 16 May 2000, PERSCOM, St. Louis, published a promotion memorandum pertaining to the applicant. It authorized the applicant’s promotion to CPT, effective 1 April 1999.
8. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from a PERSCOM, St. Louis, Reserve Component (RC) promotion official. It indicates that the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by the 1996 (F2) Department of the Army (DA) RC CPT selection board. However, it also confirms that he was not promoted to 1LT until 29 May 1995. The 1996 (F2) DA RC CPT selection board was authorized to consider 1LTs with dates of rank of 16 May 1993 or earlier. Since the applicant’s date of rank was 29 May 1995, he should not have been considered for promotion by the 1996 board. Based on his review, the RC promotion official recommended that the applicant’s name be deleted from the 1996 (F2) DA RC CPT selection board list and that the 7 May 1998 non-selection memorandum in question be removed from his record. On 10 May 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply. To date, he has failed to respond.
9. Army Regulation 135-155 provides the policy and procedure for RC officer promotions. Table 2-1 (Time in Grade Requirements) specifies that the minimum number of years in the lower grade required for promotion from 1LT to CPT is
2 years, and the maximum number of years in the lower grade is 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the memorandum in question should be removed from his OMPF and it finds this claim has merit. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was not promoted to 1LT until
29 May 1995. Thus, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion by the 1996 board, which was authorized to consider 1LTs with a date of rank of 16 May 1993 and earlier.
2. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concurs with the recommendations of the PERSCOM St. Louis, RC promotion official that the applicant’s name be deleted from the 1996 (F2) board considered list, and that the 7 May 1998 memorandum in question be removed from his OMPF at this time.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by deleting the name of the individual concerned from the considered list of the 1996 (F2) DA RC CPT promotion selection board; and by removing the 7 May 1998 Memorandum, Subject: Notification of Promotion Status, from his OMPF.
BOARD VOTE:
__JNS__ __DPH___ __WDP__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___ John N. Slone _
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002069799 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 281 | 126.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066147C070421
The Board notes the applicant’s contention that memorandum, dated 1 March 1996, Subject: Notification of Promotion Status, should be removed from his OMPF and it finds this claim has merit. Further, PERSCOM, St. Louis, promotion officials have already taken action to void the memorandum in question and recommends it be removed from the applicant’s OMPF. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by removing PERSCOM, St. Louis, memorandum, dated 1 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063242C070421
At that time, he discovered that his active duty promotion list status should have been carried over to the USAR, but he was advised to continue with the Reserve Component (RC) promotion board process until he became a CPT and attempt to change his promotion date after he was selected for promotion. He further comments that he was considered and not selected for promotion by a RC board in 1999, because the necessary educational documentation was not in his record. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077001C070215
It further states that the reasons for non-selection are usually unknown, but in this case, the applicant could not be selected for promotion based on the fact his record did not reflect that he had completed the required civilian education by the convening date of the boards. Therefore, notwithstanding the recommendation of PERSCOM, St. Louis, RC promotion officials, the Board concludes that it would be unjust to deny the applicant promotion reconsideration based on the technicality that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077963C070215
The applicant further states that under the provisions of the ROPMA, any officer appointed to the grade of captain (CPT) before 1 October 1995 is granted an exception to the civilian education requirement for promotion to MAJ. However, given the specificity of the civilian education exception granted to officers appointed to the grade of CPT before 1 October 1995 by 10 USC 12205, and absent any grant of Secretarial discretion in this section of the law, the Board finds that the intent of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084855C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, that his major (MAJ) date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to 30 June 1994 based on the constructive credit he received upon his appointment in the United States Army Reserve (USAR). The record also confirms that based on the applicant’s constructive service credit his PED to MAJ would have been established as 30 June 1994; however, he remained in training in the STRAP through 30 June 1996, and at the applicant’s request in an application to this Board, action...
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 | CY2002 | 2002075357C070403
This memorandum authorized the applicant’s promotion to MAJ and established her DOR as 27 January 2000. As a result, her record was referred to a STAB and she was considered and selected for promotion to MAJ under the criteria established for the 1998 promotion board. However, during the processing of this case, these same promotion officials determined that the 31 August 1998 date was in error, and that the applicant’s promotion date to MAJ should have actually been established as 30...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000336C070206
On 14 June 1999, prior to the effective date of his promotion to CPT, the applicant was honorably REFRAD upon completion of required active service, and he was transferred to the IRR. This HRC-St. Louis promotion official stated that the applicant's recommendation for promotion to CPT while on active duty transferred with him to the IRR, and that the applicant became eligible for promotion once he completed the 5- year maximum time in grade requirement on 2 June 2002; however, the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075885C070403
However, this responsible RC promotion official confirmed that based on the information provided by the applicant, a waiver likely would have been granted if requested prior to the convening dates of the promotion boards in question. In view of the facts of this case, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record to show he was granted a waiver of the military education requirement for promotion to CPT prior to the convening date of the 2001 DA RC AMEDD CPT...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075956C070403
The effective date of promotion and DOR shall be the same as if the officer had been selected to the grade concerned by the promotion board for RASL officers. The effective date of promotion and DOR shall be the same as if the officer had been selected to the grade concerned by the promotion board for RASL officers. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was selected for promotion to CPT by an active duty Promotion Board and placed on the active duty Promotion Standing List...