| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that her date of rank (DOR) to major (MAJ) be adjusted to 22 May 2002.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that she was selected for promotion and placed on the 2002 Department of the Army (DA) Reserve Component (RC) MAJ Army Promotion List (APL), released on 16 July 2002. She states that this list assigned her an incorrect DOR of 19 July 2002. She also states that her captain (CPT) DOR was 23 May 1995, which established her Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) to MAJ as 22 May 2002 under maximum years in grade (MYIG) provisions of the law. In support of her application, she provides a copy of her promotion memorandum to CPT and to MAJ.
4. The applicant’s military records show that she is currently serving in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status on active duty. It also confirms that she was promoted to the rank of CPT on 23 May 1995, which established her PED to MAJ as 22 May 2002.
5. The applicant was considered for and selected for promotion by the
2002 DA RC MAJ Promotion Selection Board. This board convened on 4 March 2002, and the resultant selection list was approved and signed by the President on 19 June 2002.
6. On 16 July 2002, a promotion memorandum pertaining to the applicant was published by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, which notified the applicant that she was promoted to MAJ, effective
19 June 2002, which was also established as her MAJ DOR.
7. In connection with the processing of this case, the Board requested and received an advisory opinion from the Chief, Promotions and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, RC, PERSCOM, St. Louis. It stated that the applicant was selected for promotion by the 2002, DA RC Promotion Selection Board and that her PED of 22 May 2002. Further, the applicant was subsequently promoted to MAJ with a DOR of 19 June 2002, the date the list was approved by the President. This promotion official opined that based on the fact that the applicant met the time in grade requirement on 22 May 2002, recommended that her promotion order be corrected to reflect a MAJ DOR of
22 May 2002 and a promotion effective date of 1 July 2002, the date she was assigned to a higher grade position. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond. On 1 October 2002, she provided her concurrence with the opinion.
8. 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. Table 2-1 of this regulation outlines the service requirements for promotion and indicates that the years required in the lower grade (MYIG) requirement for promotion to MAJ is 7 years.
9. Section III (Dates of Promotion) of the regulation provides the procedures for computing promotion effective dates of all RC officers. It states, in pertinent part, that antedating of the effective date of promotion will not entitle an RC officer to increased pay and allowances. However, it does establish that the DOR is the date the officer meets the eligibility criteria for promotion to the next higher grade and that an officer’s PED will become their DOR upon promotion and this date will be used to establish the relative seniority for officer’s holding the same rank. Finally, it states that DOR will be used to establish the officer’s PED to the next higher grade.
10. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 14304 (10 USC 1434) provides the legal authority for eligibility for consideration for promotion based on MYIG provisions of the law. 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. This provision of the law establishes the MYIG for CPT going to MAJ as 7 years.
11. A separate provision of the law, 10 USC 12203 establishes, in effect, that
RC officers on a promotion list will be promoted when the report of the selection board is approved by the President. Therefore, under this provision of the law, the promotion effective date is the date the list is signed by the President. It is also codified in the law that, in effect, if a RC officer’s promotion is adjusted to reflect a date earlier than the actual effective date of promotion, for example a DOR adjustment based on MYIG, this does not entitle them to additional pay or allowances.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that her DOR for MAJ should be corrected from 27 January 2001 to 31 August 1998, and finds this claim has merit.
2. Although the Board finds a legal basis to support adjusting the applicant’s DOR and PED, and it concludes that this action would be appropriate, by law, this does not entitle her to a change in the effective date of her promotion or to any back pay or allowances.
3. In addition, although the advisory opinion recommends and the applicant concurred that the effective date of her promotion should have been 1 July 2002 instead of 19 June 2002, given the applicant did not request an adjustment to her promotion effective date and this change would negatively impact the applicant, the Board elected not to make a recommendation on this issue.
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 DOR to MAJ and PED of the individual concerned is 22 May 2002.
BOARD VOTE:
__WTM__ __CJP _ __YM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_ _Walter T. Morrison_ __
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002076996 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/30 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059639C070421
She claims that at the time the promotion board convened she was serving in an authorized MAJ position and her promotion order should have reflected a DOR of 1 July 1997, which under the law was her PED. It also indicated that the applicant’s promotion effective date should have been established as 11 November 1997, the date she was assigned to an authorized MAJ position. In addition, the Board concurs with the ARPERSCOM opinion that her promotion effective date should have been 11...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065432C070421
Officials at the ARPERSCOM opined that the applicant had been considered for the first time by the 1999 Reserve Components (RC) Major Promotion Selection Board based on his DOR to CPT in 1991 and under current policies, he should have his DOR adjusted to the date he occupied a position requiring the rank of MAJ, since he was not eligible for consideration by a Reserve Component Selection Board when he reached his MYIG. Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076239C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that his captain (CPT) DOR rank was 1 May 1992, which made his promotion eligibility date (PED) to MAJ 30 April 1999, based on the 7 year maximum years in grade (MYIG) requirement for promotion to MAJ. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and who is placed on an approved promotion list shall be promoted, without regard...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068793C070402
In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 31 August 1998, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056548C070420
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. This conclusion is based on the legal provisions established...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072410C070403
In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 19 July 2000, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072145C070403
In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 3 January 2000, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090373C070212
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 | CY2003 | 2003085255C070212
Chapter 4, section III (Dates of Promotion) does state that the effective date of promotion for commissioned officers may not precede the date on which the promotion memorandum is issued, and the promotion memorandum will not be issued prior to promotion board results being approved and/or confirmed by the Senate if required). Paragraph (b) of 10 USC 14304 states, in effect, that an RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087418C070212
The applicant states that he was selected for promotion to the rank of major by a Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB) and was informed that his DOR would be 25 June 2000. He further states that when he inquired about his DOR, USAR officials stated that they could not change it because he was a member of the NJARNG. 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...