RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           30 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099776


      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. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her records be corrected to show that she
was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7, effective and
with a date of rank of 1 November 2001.

2.  The applicant states that she came on extended active duty (EAD) in
February 2000 as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, with three years time in
grade. The orders placing her on active duty stated, "SM (Service member)
will retain eligibility for RC (Reserve Component) promotion IAW (in
accordance with) DA DCSPER (Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel) Memo dated 12 May 1999."  She knew when she came on EAD she
would have to wait one year before she could go before an E-7 promotion
board in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 135-210.  She
waited a year; however, when she tried to submit her promotion packet she
was informed that because she was on active duty, it did not matter what
her orders stated, the Army Reserve enlisted promotion [branch] was not
going to honor it.  The EAD support office informed her there was no board
for EAD Soldiers and that she would have to wait until one was established
before she could go before an E-7 promotion board.  Finally, an EAD
promotion board was held and she was selected and promoted effective on 1
November 2003.  She was treated unjustly.  She should have been before the
Army Reserve promotion board in 2001.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the orders ordering her to active duty
and amendments thereto, a copy of e-mail messages concerning her promotion,
a copy of an e-mail message concerning EAD Soldiers, and a copy of an e-
mail message informing her that she had been promoted to sergeant first
class by the first ever EAD promotion board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for eight years on 12
February 1986 in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP).  She was discharged from
the DEP upon her enlistment in the Regular Army for four years on 5 March
1986.  She reenlisted for 2 years on 16 February 1990.  She was released
from active duty on 15 November 1991 and transferred to an Army Reserve
school in St. Louis.  She reenlisted in the Army Reserve for 6 years in pay
grade E-5 on 5 February 1994 and reenlisted again for 8 years on 14
February 1999.

2.  The applicant served on numerous tours of active duty for special work
(ADSW) – 13 October 1992 to 8 April 1993, 24 April 1995 to 29 September
1995, 2 October 1995 to 27 September 1996, 6 October 1997 to 25 September
1998,  and 25 January 1999 to 22 July 1999.
3.  On 21 December 1999 the Army Personnel Command at St. Louis ordered her
to active duty under the provisions of 10 U.S.C., Section 12301(d) for
three years with the Army Review Boards Agency, with duty at the Army
Review Boards Agency in St. Louis with a reporting date of 1 February 2000.
 Her orders included the remark that she would retain eligibility for
Reserve Component promotion in accordance with DA DCSPER memo dated 12 May
1999.  On        16 October 2000 those orders were amended to delete that
remark.  On               3 January 2003 her orders were amended to show an
active duty commitment of four years.

4.  The applicant's Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports show that
she has been working with the Army Review Boards Agency at St. Louis almost
continuously since July 1997.

5.  The applicant completed the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Basic Course
Reserve Component (BNCOC-RC) on 12 July 1997.  She was promoted to staff
sergeant E-6 on 1 December 1997.

6.  E-mail messages that the applicant submits with her request reflect her
promotion dilemma and efforts to assist her by this agency and the National
Guard liaison officer at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  That
officer stated that there was no promotion policy in effect at that time
for EAD Soldiers; however, one was in the making.  He did indicate that
four EAD Soldiers went before the Regular Army SFC board, but none were
selected.  An individual of this agency hand carried her records to the
Total Army Personnel Command for the 2002 SFC promotion board.  Her records
were either not reviewed by that board or she was not selected, as
evidenced by the fact that she was considered and not recommended by the
subsequent standby board (paragraph 7 below).

7.  On 22 November 2002 the Personnel Command Enlisted Promotions Branch
notified this agency that the applicant was considered for promotion by the
DA Enlisted Standby Advisory Board, which adjourned on 15 October 2002, and
that she was not recommended for promotion under the CY02 SFC promotion
selection board [criteria].

8.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal
for the period 1 February 2000 to 31 January 2003.

9.  The CY03 Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)/Individual Mobilization
Augmentee (IMA), and EAD selection board convened under the provisions of
Army Regulation 140-158 to consider and select Soldiers for promotion to
staff sergeant through sergeant major.  It adjourned on 6 August 2003 and
the recommendations were approved on 14 August 2003.  She was selected for
promotion and was notified on 4 September 2003 that she was selected by the
first EAD promotion board held by PERSCOM.

10.  The applicant was promoted to sergeant first class E-7 on 1 November
2003. On 28 November 2003 she was released from active duty and assigned to
the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) at St. Louis.

11.  Orders published by the Army Reserve Personnel Command on
   10 September 2003 show that the applicant was ordered to active duty in
an AGR (Active Guard/Reserve) status for three years effective in October
2003.

12.  10 U.S.C., Section 12301(d) states that at any time, an authority
designated by the Secretary concerned may order a member of a Reserve
Component under his jurisdiction to active duty, or retain him on active
duty, with the consent of that member.

13.  Army Regulation 135-210 prescribes policies, responsibilities, and
procedures for ordering individual Soldiers of the Army Reserve to active
duty during peacetime.  It states that Soldiers will be ordered to
peacetime active duty voluntarily to fill actual or anticipated vacancies
in the active Army, voluntarily for temporary tours of active duty in
support of essential active Army mission, involuntarily when a cadet
breaches the terms of his or her contract, or involuntarily when in a
captive status.  That regulation is silent concerning the promotion status
of Soldiers ordered to active duty.

14.  Army Regulation 140-158 provides for the promotion of Reserve
Soldiers.  It does not apply to Army Reserve Soldiers assigned to the
active Army and paid from Military Personnel, Army (MPA) appropriations.
Provisions of that regulation provide for the promotion of Soldiers
assigned to Troop Program Units, Soldiers serving on Active Guard/Reserve
(AGR) status, Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), Individual Mobilization
Augmentee (IMA), and Standby Reserve (Active List) Soldiers.  Time in grade
requirements for consideration for promotion to sergeant first class for
Soldiers assigned to Troop Program Units is 21 months as a staff sergeant;
for IRR, IMA, and Standby Reserve (Active List) Soldiers, 36 months.  There
are no provisions for promotion of Soldiers on active duty in an EAD
status.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant volunteered for and was ordered to active duty for three
years with a reporting date of 1 February 2000.  Obviously, she wanted to
continue her work with the Army Review Boards Agency in St. Louis.  That
portion of her orders which ordered her to active duty, indicating that she
would retain Reserve Component promotion, was subsequently revoked, with
good reason.  The applicant was no longer assigned to the IRR, but a
Reserve Soldier on extended active duty.  She could not be considered for
promotion by an Army Reserve selection board.

2.  Unfortunately, there were no provisions in effect to properly consider
Reserve Soldiers on EAD for consideration for promotion with Regular Army
Soldiers, although she and other Soldiers were so considered, but not
selected.  It could be assumed that it would be difficult for Reserve
Soldiers in an EAD status to successfully compete for promotion with
Regular Army Soldiers.  In this respect, the applicant was treated no
differently than other Soldiers on EAD.  The policy has been corrected so
as to consider enlisted Soldiers on EAD for promotion in the same manner as
IRR and IMA Soldiers in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation
140-158.

3.  The applicant in volunteering for extended active duty did so to occupy
a particular position vacancy, thereby conceding her promotion
opportunities with the Army Reserve.  This new promotion policy, while of
benefit to Soldiers on EAD, would appear to result in enlisted Soldiers, if
selected and promoted while on EAD, being promoted out of the position
vacancy for which they volunteered.  This would seem to true in the
applicant's case had she desired to continue on EAD with the Army Review
Boards Agency in St. Louis.

4.  Had the applicant remained in the IRR, she would have been considered
for promotion to sergeant first class in 2000.  She did not, which was her
choice.   There is neither error in this matter nor any injustice done to
her.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JS  ___  ___LE  __  ___MM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            _____ John Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099776                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040930                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.04                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]