| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The effective date of his promotion to first lieutenant be corrected to 22 December 2001.
APPLICANT STATES: He states that he was not promoted on his promotion eligibility date (PED) through no fault of his own. When he was appointed, his unit neglected to initiate a security clearance. In support of his request he submits copies of his 11 December 1999 appointment memorandum and the accompanying oath of office, an accounting of his Reserve retirement points, a 15 October 2002 Memorandum for Record explaining that he could not be promoted on his PED because he had no security clearance but was promoted effective 4 September 2002, his 15 October 2002 promotion memorandum and a Soldier Management System-Contact and Cases printout, dated 21 March 2003.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
Following active duty enlisted service in the Marine Corps (USMC) and Regular Army and Reserve service in the USMC Reserve, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve (USAR) he was appointed a USAR second lieutenant on 22 December 1999.
He was promoted to first lieutenant, effective 4 September 2002. A 15 October 2002 Memorandum for the Record (MOR) states that the applicant could not be promoted on his PEB of 21 December 2001, "because all promotion qualifications were not met."
The 21 March 2003 Soldier Management System printout shows that his promotion file was suspended due to the absence of an appointment letter and a security clearance. The 94th Reserve Support Command was notified. It was suspended again on 5 April 2002 for the same reasons, plus his physical was now outdated. On 7 October 2002 the MOR was prepared.
Army Regulation 135-100, Appointment of Officers and Warrant Officers of the Army, specifies that each applicant for appointment as a commissioned officer must have a secret security clearance before an appointment may be tendered except that lawyers, medical department professionals and clergy may be tendered an appointment based upon a statement that a security clearance request has been initiated.
Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. It was published on 24 October 2001 and became effective 2 November 2001. The regulation specifies that an officer who has been recommended for promotion to the next higher grade must have undergone a favorable security screening. Paragraph 4-13 of this regulation also specifies that promotion authorities will ensure that a favorable security screening is completed before announcing a promotion. This regulation did not change the previous regulation on this issue.
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. In view of the all the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to adjustment to his date of rank as a first lieutenant. He has not shown the existence of error, injustice, that would serve as a basis for the relief he now requests.
2. His promotion was delayed because his record was deficient. He could not, by regulation, be promoted until the deficiencies were corrected. His promotion was effective on the date his security clearance was granted.
3. His contention, that the promotion was delayed through no fault of his own, has been noted. However; neither the applicant, his unit nor the 94th Reserve Support Command provided any illuminating details nor substantiating evidence to support that contention. It is not known, for instance, when he completed his part of the paperwork for the security clearance screening.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. 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
__SK ___ ___RJW _ ___MMB DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086510 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031106 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090486C070212
The applicant was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant with a date of rank and an effective date of 5 March 2002, by a Memorandum for Record, Subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army, prepared by the Director, Personnel Actions and Services, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, dated 17 April 2002. The applicant is entitled to correction of his date of rank for promotion to 1LT to 20 June 2000, the date he would normally have been promoted to first lieutenant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002984C070206
The applicant requests adjustment to her date of rank for first lieutenant from 13 June 2003 to 10 February 2002. A Promotion Memorandum, dated 14 July 2004, was issued to the applicant indicating her promotion effective date and date of rank for first lieutenant was 13 June 2003. In an advisory opinion, dated 16 May 2005, the Chief, Promotions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, AHRC – St. Louis, stated that the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant on 31 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005929C070205
In an advisory opinion, dated 13 June 2006, the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command (HRC) – St. Louis, Missouri, stated that an officer assigned to a unit must be fully qualified to be promoted and his date of rank is established as the date he met all requirements. He was selected for promotion to captain by the 2000 AMEDD RCSB; however, he could not be promoted because all promotion qualifications were not met, i.e.,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013460
A USAHRC-STL memorandum, dated 13 April 2005, shows that the applicant was selected for promotion to 1LT by an Administrative Promotion Board that convened on 31 March 2005. USAHRC-STL Orders B-05-501580, dated 9 May 2005, show that the applicant was promoted to 1LT effective 18 April 2005, with a date of rank of 18 April 2005. Based on her date of rank of 18 April 2005 and completion of 5 years time in the lower grade, the applicant's promotion eligibility date (PED) for CPT is 17 April 2010.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014755
The opinion states that she was granted a clearance on 26 March 2003 and promoted to first lieutenant with a DOR of 25 February 2003. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants military records to show her effective date of promotion to first lieutenant in the USAR is 9 December 2002 with a DOR of 9 December 2002. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show she was promoted to first lieutenant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005443C070205
He advised the applicant that his date of rank would be 1 February 2005, unless he could submit proof that he had a valid security clearance before that date. The policy states a second lieutenant will be promoted to first lieutenant with a date of rank of 1 February 2005, without a current physical, security clearance, and APFT. The evidence shows that promotion authorities verified that the applicant had failed the APFT and did not have a valid security clearance at the time he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001174C070206
Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant, as an ARNG officer was granted an interim clearance on 20 August 2003, was reassigned to the IRR effective 19 November 2003, and he was never promoted. Had the Office of Promotions, HRC - St. Louis, been aware that the applicant had been granted an interim clearance at the time of his assignment to the IRR, the applicant would have been promoted the date after his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001174C070206
The applicant also states that he submitted a request for a delay of promotion on 4 August 2002 and the request was approved on 17 September 2002. The applicant, as an ARNG officer was granted an interim clearance on 20 August 2003, was reassigned to the IRR effective 19 November 2003, and he was never promoted. The applicant is not entitled to correction of his date of rank to major to 5 March 2002, based on his approved request for delay of promotion until 24 July 2004.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086491C070212
The applicant states that he was denied correction to his date of rank because he did not have a security clearance on file by his promotion eligibility date. In a Memorandum for Record dated 12 December 2002, the Chief, Military Personnel Actions Branch, states that the applicant could not be promoted at his promotion eligibility date of 15 January 2001, because all promotion qualifications were not met. The records provided to the Board do not contain a memorandum from the Chief, Reserve...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086489C070212
The applicant states that she was denied her correct date of rank because no security clearance was on file for her as of her promotion eligibility date. She was awarded a security clearance effective 12 December 2002 and promoted to first lieutenant. The Board also notes that with the applicant’s constructive service credit of 7 months and 10 days, she was eligible for promotion to first lieutenant as early as 5 August 2001.