| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the effective date of his promotion to first lieutenant (1LT) and his 1LT date of rank (DOR) be corrected to read 16 May 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his promotion to 1LT and his pay for that promotion was delinquent because he was eligible for promotion on 16 May 1999, but he was not promoted until 14 October 1999. He claims that his chain of command has been non-responsive in responding to his requests to correct this error.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
As of the date of his application to this Board, the applicant was serving in an active status in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).
On 16 May 1997, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant (2LT) in the USAR. He was considered for promotion to 1LT by the 1998 Administrative Board, but was not selected.
On 14 October 1999, the applicant completed the Officer Basic Course (OBC), and on 30 November 2001, a promotion memorandum was issued that authorized his promotion to 1LT with a DOR of 14 October 1999.
In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components (RC), U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM),
St. Louis, Missouri. This promotion official stated that based on his appointment date, the applicant’s promotion eligibility date to 1LT was 15 May 1999. However, he was considered for promotion by the 1998 Administrative Board, but not selected because he had not completed the military education requirement of completing the Officer Basic Course (OBC). On 14 October 1999, he completed OBC and his promotion to 1LT was authorized for that date. He was then deleted from consideration by the 2002 Captain, RC, Promotion Selection Board due to his not being in the zone of consideration, which was established as 1LTs with a DOR of 30 June 1999 or earlier. This RC promotion official states that the applicant will be considered for promotion to captain by the 2003 RC Promotion Selection Board, but he is not eligible for an earlier 1LT DOR at this time.
On 18 March 2003, the applicant was provided a copy of the PERSCOM,
St. Louis, advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond. 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 USAR. Paragraph 2-1 states, in pertinent part, that a USAR officer in the grade of 2LT will be considered for promotion without review by a selection board. It further indicates that records of USAR unit officers will be screened by the Office of RC Promotions, PERSCOM, St. Louis, to determine their eligibility for promotion.
Paragraph 2-8 of the USAR promotion regulation provides the military education requirements necessary for promotion, and Table 2-2 stipulates that in order to be eligible for promotion to 1LT, an officer must have completed the resident OBC.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should have been promoted to 1LT on 15 May 1999. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. By regulation, a unit USAR officer must complete the resident OBC in order to be promoted to 1LT. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s promotion eligibility date to 1LT was 15 May 1999; however, he was not promoted on that date because he had not yet completed the military education requirement for promotion. On 14 October 1999, he did complete OBC, the military education requirement for promotion. As a result, he was promoted to 1LT on that date.
3. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concurs with the position taken by RC promotion officials in the PERSCOM, St. Louis, advisory opinion that the applicant is not eligible for an earlier 1LT promotion date. Thus, the Board finds the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
4. 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
___jm___ ___lds___ ___tbr___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081351 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/01 |
| 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 | CY2007 | 20070010971
The evidence of record in this case appears to show the applicant was not promoted on his PED because he did not possess a valid security clearance; however, it provides no information regarding why a security screening of his record was not completed at the time, or why his security clearance packet was not properly processed. The evidence of record also shows that he was promoted to CPT on 29 August 2006, 3 years, 6 months, and 3 days after he was promoted to 1LT on 4 February 2003. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016783 C070206
William F. Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests correction to his date of rank for first lieutenant (1LT) to 12 September 2003. In an advisory opinion, dated 18 January 2006, the Chief, Promotions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command (HRC) – St. Louis, Missouri, stated that they recommended disapproval on the applicant's request to adjust his DOR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001421C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that she was notified of her eligibility for promotion to 1LT in February 2003, and she completed the required Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) in June 2003, and as a result she met the promotion requirements at that time. This official confirms the effective date of the applicant's appointment into the USAR was 7 March 2002, which made her Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) to 1LT 6 March 2004. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant did not meet...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019716
This HRC-St. Louis promotion official stated that the applicant was REFRAD and transferred to the USAR on 12 May 1999, prior to his promotion eligibility date (PED). The HRC-St. Louis, Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, RC, further states that had the applicant been assigned to a higher graded position upon his 12 May 1999 discharge from the RA and transferred to the USAR he would have been eligible for promotion to CPT on his PED of 1 July 1999, or had he remained...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 20080006558
The applicants military service records contain a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, Missouri, memorandum, dated 19 June 2003, subject: Appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army Under Title 10, USC 12202 and 12203, that shows, in pertinent part, the applicant was appointed as a Chaplain Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army in the grade of 1LT, effective 20 June 2003, and credited with 3 years of service in an active status. The evidence...
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 | 2002069799C070402
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. 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...