RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010279


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 his date of rank as a lieutenant colonel
(LTC) be changed from 3 June 2003 to 4 February 2003.

2.  The applicant, states that he was deployed to Kuwait on temporary
change of station (TCS) orders when he received notice, on 4 February 2003,
that he had been selected for promotion.  He could not be promoted until he
was assigned in a LTC position in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) and he was
not eligible for reassignment while on TCS.  His career manager informed
him that Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis was working on an
exception to policy because of the number of officers in this situation.
He and his superiors spent much time trying to effect a solution, but he
was not promoted until after he returned to the United States and reported
to his new assignment.  He believes that his peers who were not deployed
received an earlier date of rank and that he will be at a competitive
disadvantage for the next promotion.  Some of his peers, who were not
deployed, now have earlier dates of rank.  He understands that policy has
been changed to allow TCS deployed AGR officers to be promoted in place.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his 30 October 2002 TCS orders, 12
June 2003 permanent change of station (PCS) orders and his promotion
orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a USAR major was deployed in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom on TCS orders when selected for promotion to LTC by the
2002 Reserve Components Selection Board.

2.  He returned to the United States and carried out PCS orders to Fort
Devens, Massachusetts on 13 June 2003.

3.  Promotion orders dated 26 June 2003 officially informed him of his
promotion with an effective date and a date of rank of 3 June 2003.

4.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained
from the HRC, St. Louis.  The Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of
Promotions, Reserve Components noted that based upon his date of rank as a
major, the
applicant's promotion eligibility date was 13 May 2003.  He pointed out
that
Reserve officers are promotable no earlier than the date the President
approves the promotion board results and only if they are assigned to a
position requiring the higher grade.  The chief explained that the new
policy provides that AGR officers are to be reassigned within 180 days of
the end of TCS and noted that the applicant had been reassigned in less
than 2 months.  Denial of his request was recommended.

5.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for possible
rebuttal.  He did not respond.

6.  The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), a public law
enacted by Congress on 5 October 1994, prescribed policies and procedures
to consolidate and modernize the laws governing the management of Reserve
component officers.  ROPMA was implemented on 1 October 1996, and it
established that the minimum time in grade (MTIG) for a major is 7 years,
and that an officer selected for promotion to major the first time he/she
is considered will be promoted on or before the date that he/she completes
the MTIG.

7.  ROPMA further specifies that an officer must be serving in an AGR
position requiring the higher grade or assigned to the Individual Ready
Reserve or an Individual Mobilization Augmentee position in the higher
grade.  Promotion cannot be effective prior to approval of respective
boards by the President.

8.  On 17 December 2003, the Assistant Secretary (M&RA) established
promotion policy for mobilized Reserve Component Officers for promotion to
the grade of captain through colonel.  This policy applies to all Reserve
Component commissioned officers (IRR and Selected Reserve) on the RASL.
The policy provides an exception to Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-
9a, which requires troop program unit (TPU) officers selected by a
mandatory promotion board be assigned or attached to a Reserve position
requiring the higher grade.  A mobilized officer covered by this policy who
had been recommended for promotion may be promoted immediately when matched
against a vacant position of the higher grade.  An officer promoted under
this policy should be assigned to that position against which the officer
was matched or appointed within 180 days after demobilization.  If an
officer, upon demobilization, declines or is unwilling or unable to occupy
the position against which the officer was matched or appointed, then the
officer, whether a member of the USAR or Army National Guard, shall be
transferred immediately to the IRR if the officer was not
assigned to some higher graded Reserve Component position within 180 days
after demobilization.  Any proposed guidance to implement this policy
memorandum that will be issued by the CAR, or the Director, Army National
Guard, must be coordinated with the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, and approved
by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (M&RA).  The policy did not allow
for retroactive promotion of mobilized TPU officers prior to 17 December
2003.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based upon his date of rank as a major and the MTIG requirement the
applicant could not have been promoted earlier than 13 May 2003.
Furthermore, he could not be promoted until assigned to a position
requiring the higher grade.

2.  As noted in the advisory opinion the applicable new policy requires
that AGR officers be reassigned within 180 days of the end of TCS.  The
applicant was reassigned to a higher level position in much less than that.

3.  The policy contained in the 17 December 2003 decision by the Assistant
Secretary (M&RA), which the applicant appears to have in mind, is not
retroactive and in any case applies to TPU officers and not to AGR
officers.

4.  Denial of the applicant's request was recommended by the HRC, St. Louis
and the applicant offered no rebuttal.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_RLD ___  __JRM__  __SLP___  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.





                                  _      Shirley L. Powell_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010279                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050913                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |  . . . . .                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.05                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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