| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, a correction to his first lieutenant (1LT) date of rank (DOR).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he met the minimum years in grade requirement for promotion from second lieutenant (2LT) to 1LT, which was two years, on 31 May 1998. He states that he was assigned to the Indiana Army National Guard (ARNG) on 9 July 1997, transferred to the Missouri ARNG on
1 July 1999, and on 20 December 2000, he was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) of the United States Army Reserve (USAR), where he now serves.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 10 May 1996, the applicant was commissioned a Reserve Officer, and he was appointed a 2LT in the USAR. The applicant was promoted to 1LT on 1 July 1999, while serving in the ARNG. He remained in the ARNG until being honorably separated on 30 December 2001. At that time, he was transferred to the IRR of the USAR, where he now serves.
In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB), dated 21 October 2002. It states that the applicant was commissioned a 2LT on 10 May 1996, and by regulation was eligible for promotion to 1LT on 10 May 1998, as he indicated in his application. However, promotion from 2LT to 1LT is not automatic. An officer must be recommended, the promotion packet processed and approved up through the chain of command, and the promotion approved by the final promotion authority, which in this case was the Chief, NGB.
The NGB opinion further indicated that in the applicant’s case, the required promotion recommendation was made and his promotion packet processed well after he was eligible for promotion to 1LT, but based on his promotion date of
1 July 1999, he was still promoted well within the maximum time in grade requirements of the regulation. Finally, it stated that the applicant’s promotion was accomplished within the guidelines of the applicable regulations and does not appear to be in error or an injustice to the applicant. As a result, the application should not be approved.
On 15 November 2002, a copy of the NGB advisory opinion was provided to the applicant in order to provide him the opportunity to response and/or submit a rebuttal. To date, he has failed to reply.
Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the ARNG and the USAR. It states, in pertinent part, that ARNG officers in the grade of 2LT will be considered for promotion without review by a selection board. The officer's records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed as outlined in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 provides time in grade requirements and indicates, in pertinent part, that minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to 1LT is 2 years and the maximum time in grade requirement is 42 months.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the contention that his 1LT DOR should be adjusted, but it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this claim.
2. By regulation, the records of officers in the rank of 2LT will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date regulatory time in grade requirements are met. The time in grade restraints outlined in the regulation for promotion to 1LT are listed as 2 years minimum time in grade and 42 maximum time in grade.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to 1LT within the time in grade restraints outlined in the regulation. As pointed out in the NGB advisory opinion, although the applicant was not promoted on the date he met the minimum time in grade requirement, he was promoted well before reaching the maximum time in grade constraint. Therefore, lacking evidence to show that the applicant’s promotion was unjustly delayed by the chain of command or due to some administrative error, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
4. 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 this requirement.
5. 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
__RWA__ __KYF___ __BPI__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071419 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 21 | 102.0700 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2014 | 20140018488
This NGB Form 78, dated 8 July 2014, did not recommend him for 1LT due to his having 36 months TIG. The NGB Form 78 stated [The Applicant] was not recommended for promotion and should be discharged upon his 36 month TIG date of 28 July 2014, due to his disenrollment from the ECP at his school. The evidence of record and the documents he provided confirmed that from the time he entered the GAARNG as an ECP 2LT on 28 July 2011 through the date of his discharge just over 36 months later on 12...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009478C070206
Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer will complete those years of service. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011555
The applicant provides copies of the following documentation in support of his request: * memorandum, dated 31 July 2007, subject: Request for Retroactive Commissioning * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 337 (Oaths of Office), dated 13 May 2006 * DA Form 71 (Oath of Office - Military Personnel), dated 12 May 2006 * DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report), dated 13 November 2006 * appointment and/or promotion orders to 2LT and 1LT * active duty for training orders * NGB Form 62E (Application for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011997
The official stated: * Based on the applicant's appointment on 18 March 2008, the earliest he was eligible for promotion to 1LT was 18 March 2010 * At the date of his promotion eligibility, he was not fully qualified for promotion to 1LT because of his suspended security clearance * The applicant required a minimum of a secret security clearance * Once his suspension was lifted on 30 November 2010, he was eligible for promotion on that date * Eligibility does not mean automatic promotion and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001796C070205
The standard time in grade for promotion to 1LT is 2 years or 18 months. The officer’s records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed. While the advisory opinion noted that an updated security clearance and current physical were required at the time the applicant was due for promotion, it is acknowledged that there is no evidence to show he did not meet those...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003552
The applicants military service record shows he was appointed in the ARNG as an Armor officer, in the grade of 1LT/pay grade O-2, effective and with a DOR of 28 September 2006. These documents show, in pertinent part, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, with appointment in the ARNG of the United States, in the grade of 2LT, effective 8 August 1992. b. These documents show, in pertinent part, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021458
She was then transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) but was not promoted to 1LT until 30 May 1997, nearly 3 years after her appointment. If she can provide documentation to verify she met all promotion requirements on 1 October 1996, her DOR to 1LT should be changed to 1 October 1996. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of both the ARNG and the USAR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012048
Officers who are Federally recognized in a particular grade and branch shall be tendered an appointment in the same grade as Reserve commissioned officers of the Army with assignment to the ARNG of the United States if they have not already accepted such appointment. d. Paragraph 10-15b states temporary FEDREC may be granted by an Federal Recognition Board (FREB) to those eligible when the board finds that the member has successfully passed the examination prescribed herein, has subscribed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013251
The applicant provides: * a self-authored statement * a memorandum from the Chief, Personnel Policy and Readiness Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB), dated 7 May 2007 * DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel) * Orders 361-4, dated 27 December 2007 * Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army memorandum, dated 27 December 2007 * NGB Form 337 (Oaths of Office), dated 7 February 2008 * Special Orders Number 194 AR, dated 31 July 2008 * Special Orders Number 220 AR,...