| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
2. The applicant requests that all his military records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to colonel/0-6 with a date of rank of 1 March 2001, and that he be paid back pay for the period of active duty service from 1 March 2001 through 31 January 2002 at the rate of colonel/0-6.
3. The applicant states that he was selected for promotion by a special selection board, but the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) informed him that they could not promulgate the promotion order because he was retired.
4. In support of his application, he submits a brief in his own behalf; a letter granting reconsideration, dated 9 July 2001; a letter announcing his selection for promotion to colonel/0-6, dated 8 April 2002; and an extract from the Congressional Record confirming his promotion, dated 30 April 2002.
5. The applicant’s military records show that, in 2001, he was a lieutenant colonel serving in the Judge Advocate General Corps. On 16 April 2001, having failed selection for promotion to colonel/0-6 on the FY00 Colonel Judge Advocate General Corps Promotion Board, the applicant requested reconsideration. He based his request for reconsideration on material error in his file that went before the promotion board.
6. While his request for promotion reconsideration was ongoing, the applicant voluntarily separated from active duty on 31 January 2002 and was retired as a lieutenant colonel on 1 February 2002.
7. On 8 April 2002, the applicant was officially notified that he had been selected for promotion to colonel/0-6 with a promotion date of 1 March 2001. He was also informed that, because he was retired, PERSCOM could not issue the promotion order. He was referred to this Board.
8. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, PERSCOM, which states that the applicant was considered and selected by a special selection board under the criteria and instructions established for the regularly-constituted FY00 Colonel, Judge Advocate General Corps that recessed in August 2000. The applicant was given a sequence number 1.5 resulting in a colonel date of rank and effective date of 1 March 2001. PERSCOM recommended that the applicant be promoted to colonel/0-6 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 March 2001, with all back pay and allowances. However, PERSCOM could not issue a promotion order since the applicant was separated from active duty.
9. On 9 September 2002, the applicant concurred with the advisory opinion.
10. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. It is linked to AR 600–8 and provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support officer promotions. It states, in pertinent part, that officers accepting a promotion to the grade of colonel/O-6 do not incur a service obligation; however, to retire in the next higher grade, the officer must serve satisfactorily in the new grade for a period of 3 years.
11. Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army and establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). It states, in pertinent part, that Block 4 (GRADE, RATE or RANK) will reflect the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant is entitled to be promoted to colonel/0-6 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 March 2001.
2. The applicant is entitled to back pay and allowances in the grade of
colonel/0-6 from 1 March 2001 to 31 January 2002.
3. The applicant is entitled to have his DD Form 214 corrected to reflect his rank as colonel/O-6 at the time of his separation. However, he is not entitled to be retired in the rank of colonel/O-6 because of the provisions of AR 600-8-29.
4. 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 showing that the individual concerned was promoted to colonel/0-6 with a date of rank and an effective date of 1 March 2001; that he be paid back pay and allowances at the colonel/0-6 rate from 1 March 2001 through 31 January 2002; and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show in Block 4 that he separated as a "colonel/O-6."
BOARD VOTE:
__fne___ __le____ __tl____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Fred N. Eichorn
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002074872 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021121 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059261C070421
The applicant provides a letter of support from his senior rater, the Major General (now a Lieutenant General) Commander of the United States Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood. The promotion board did not see the applicant’s That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected as an exception to policy, for the individual concerned, by reconsidering him for promotion selection under the FY00 Colonel Army Competitive Category (ACC) Promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085059C070212
In effect, the applicant claims that when considering officers for promotion, the PSB in question distinguished between the officers being considered in the PZ and the officers being considered from APZ. The memorandum explained that the law authorized promotion reconsideration only for non-selected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a PSB. It states, in pertinent part, that an officer or warrant officer may be reconsidered for promotion by a SSB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000042C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record shows the applicant was released from active duty on 31 January 1999 in the rank of LTC after completing 22 years, 9 months, and 12 days of ACS. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing he was promoted to COL effective 1 September 1998; b. voiding his retirement of 1 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081099C070215
Evidence of record shows that the applicant was considered, and selected, for promotion to colonel/pay grade O-6 by a Department of the Army Special Selection Board and that his effective date of promotion was 2 March 1998. As such, the applicant is not entitled to have his records corrected to show an extension of his MRD beyond 3 September 2001, or his service beyond 30 September 2001. d. Correcting the individual’s military records to show that he was promoted to colonel/pay grade O-6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058641C070421
In the alternate, he requests that he be considered for promotion by a special selection board, with instructions to that board that no adverse implication was to be construed by his having only two years of service in the rank of major or the number of officer evaluation reports (OERs) or types of duty assignments to date, and instructions to the board reflecting that in the absence of officer evaluation reports (OERs) during the period 1996-1998 while he was waiting for a decision on his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058075C070420
On 19 April 2000, he was advised by the DCSPER, UT ARNG that he was eligible for consideration by the 2000 lieutenant colonel chaplain Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB). Error or injustice may not be readily apparent in this case; however, the Board concludes that the UT ARNG and the applicant understood that he would not be considered in 2000 and had until his next selection board to prepare for promotion consideration. The Board further concludes that the applicant’s 2000...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007663C070208
He commends the Army for allowing passed over officers the opportunity to request a promotion re-look. The applicant had been considered but not selected for promotion to Colonel by the Fiscal Years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 promotion selection boards. Specifically, the release date of the results for the promotion selection board, which considered but did not select the officer, must be within 6 years from the date that the affected officer submitted his request for promotion...
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 | CY2001 | 2001051261C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008302
On 27 May 1993, the applicant requested early retirement. If he is selected for promotion, the applicant may then submit a request for further relief based upon that selection for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he timely requested consideration by a special selection board and by submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board for reconsideration for promotion to...