PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 11 March 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075357


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. William Blakely		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member
Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests, in effect, correction to her date of rank (DOR) for major (MAJ).

3. The applicant states, in effect, that due to an administrative error she was not considered by the 1998 Department of the Army (DA), Reserve Component (RC), MAJ, Promotion Selection Board. As a result, she requested and was reconsidered for promotion by a DA Standby Advisory Board (STAB) that convened on 30 March 1999.

4. The applicant’s military records show that she is currently serving with Troop Program Unit (TPU) of the United States Army Reserve (USAR), in the rank of MAJ. It also confirms that she was promoted to the rank of captain (CPT) on
1 October 1991, which established her Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) to MAJ as 30 September 1998, based on her having attained her maximum years in grade (MYIG) as a CPT.

5. On 31 January 2000, the Chief, Office of Promotions, RC, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, issued a memorandum that informed the applicant that she had been selected for promotion to MAJ by the STAB under the criteria used by the 1998 promotion board. She was further advised that upon final processing, a promotion letter would be forwarded to her with the date of rank of 31 August 1998.

6. On 18 January 2000, a memorandum pertaining to the applicant was published by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM). This memorandum notified the applicant that in order to be promoted she must be in an active status, have a current security clearance, be medically qualified for retention, and meet the standards of the Army Body Composition Program established in Army Regulation 600-9. In response to this memorandum, the applicant’s unit provided worksheets confirming that the applicant was in a valid position and met all the requirements for promotion.

7. On 27 January 2000, a promotion memorandum pertaining to the applicant was published by ARPERSCOM. This memorandum authorized the applicant’s promotion to MAJ and established her DOR as 27 January 2000.

8. On 13 April 2002, the applicant submitted a memorandum to ARPERSCOM requesting her DOR to MAJ be changed to the date authorized by the STAB. She stated that her reason for making the request was the delay in her promotion processing because she had not been considered for promotion when she was originally eligible due to an administrative error. However, there is no indication in the record that this request was ever answered.

---

9. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Military Personnel Actions Branch, ARPERSCOM. It indicates that the 1996 Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act strict established strict eligibility criteria and requirements for promotion. In this case, although the applicant was selected for promotion by a STAB under the criteria used by the 1998 promotion board, she did not meet the criteria established by the ROPMA because she was not in a valid position at the time. Further, her DOR was established using the day she was assigned to a valid position, which was 27 January 2000. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant’s DOR remain 27 January 2000.

10. The Chief, Office of Promotions, RC, PERSCOM, St. Louis, was contacted to determine if the DOR of 31 August 1998, listed on the promotion memorandum pertaining to the applicant, dated 31 January 2000, was correct. This promotion official confirmed that the date of 31 August 1998 had been an administrative error, and that based on her CPT DOR of 1 October 1991, the applicant’s PED to MAJ was 30 September 1998. As a result, this date should have been established as her promotion date to MAJ in the promotion memorandum in question.

11. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and the commissioned and warrant officers of the USAR.

12. Paragraph 2-10 provides guidance on mandatory selection boards and it states, in pertinent part, that mandatory selection boards will convene each year and consider officers for promotion without regard to vacancies in the next higher grade. Further, first consideration for promotion will occur well in advance of the date the officer will complete the time in grade (TIG) requirements for promotion, which will ensure officers will be promoted on or before their maximum TIG
Table 2-1 outlines the service requirements for promotion and indicates that the years required in the lower grade, maximum years in grade (MYIG) requirement for promotion to MAJ is 7 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that her DOR for MAJ should be corrected, and it finds this claim has merit. The evidence of records shows that the applicant was not considered for promotion to MAJ during her promotion eligibility year of 1998 due to an administrative error. 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.

2. The record further confirms that based on the applicant’s selection by the STAB, PERSCOM, St. Louis promotion officials initially determined that her promotion date to MAJ should be 31 August 1998. 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 September 1998, the date she reached her MYIG of 7 years as a CPT.

3. The Board recognizes that the 1996 ROPMA Act established specific criteria for promotion, and it agrees that the criteria outlined in the ARPERSCOM advisory opinion is correct, but it does not agree that this is the determinate factor in this case. The same ROPMA provisions of law require that first consideration for promotion of an RC officer will occur well in advance of the date the officer would complete the MYIG for promotion. In this case, the applicant reached her MYIG as a CPT on 30 September 1998. Further, she was selected for promotion by a STAB because she was unjustly denied promotion consideration when she was originally eligible. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to correct her MAJ DOR to 30 September 1998, the correct date established by PERSCOM, St. Louis promotion officials based on her STAB selection.

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 the DOR to MAJ of the individual concerned is 30 September 1998.

BOARD VOTE:

__SAC__ __TSK _ __ SLP__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION



                  _ Samuel A. Crumpler ._
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075357
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/11
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	131.0500
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

A