RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001921


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette 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 the effective date of her promotion to
major be corrected to show she was promoted on 11 March 2000 vice 27 April
2003.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the effective date of her promotion to
major,
27 April 2003, as specified in a 6 January 2004 memorandum is incorrect.
She states the correct date should be 11 March 2000 as indicated in a
memorandum dated 9 September 1999.

3.  The applicant states the delay occurred because of inaction by her
assigned unit in addressing missing data.  She states the process to
complete a security clearance requirement was long and arduous and notes
her record of service has been without blemish.  She also notes she entered
military service with 13 years of experience as a nurse and was promised
constructive credit which never materialized.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of the 9 September 1999 memorandum
notifying her of her selection for promotion to major, a 31 July 2003
document granting her a secret security clearance, and the 6 January 2004
memorandum promoting her to the rank of major effective 27 April 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Documents available to the Board indicate the applicant completed her
BSN (Bachelor of Science Degree-Nursing) in 1974 and in March 1986 accepted
a commission in the United States Army Reserve.

2.  Army Regulation 135-101, which established the policies and procedures
for the appointment of Reserve commissioned officer for assignment to Army
medical department branches, notes entry grade credit and constructive
service credit is limited to nursing candidates with advanced degrees and
that credit awarded for professional nursing experience required evaluation
by the Office of The Surgeon General.

3.  On 12 March 1993 the applicant was promoted to the rank of captain.

4.  A 9 September 1999 memorandum notified the applicant she had been
selected for promotion to the rank of major and that her promotion
eligibility date was 11 March 2000.  The memorandum also informed her that
to be promoted she must remain in an active status, have a current security
clearance, be medically qualified for retention, meet the body composition
standards of Army Regulation 600-9, and otherwise meet promotion
eligibility criteria set forth in Army Regulation 135-155.

5.  In addition to the promotion criteria noted above, Army Regulation 135-
155 also states that an officer assigned to a Troop Program Unit must be
assigned to a grade equal to or higher than the grade to which selected and
have taken and passed an Army Physical Fitness Test within prescribed time
frames unless precluded from doing so because of a valid permanent or
temporary medical profile.

6.  The regulation specifically states that an officer recommended for
promotion to the next higher grade must have undergone a favorable security
screening.  According to paragraph 4-13 of Army Regulation 135-155,
screening consists of reviewing an individual's military personnel records
jacket or personnel electronic management system to ensure that derogatory
or unfavorable suitability information is not contained therein.  If the
results of the screening are favorable, final promotion action may proceed.
 If the screening reveals derogatory or suitability information, the
promotion authority will cause a National Agency Check to be conducted and
final action on the promotion will be withheld until the results of the
National Agency Check are received.

7.  The applicant's performance evaluation reports are devoid of any
derogatory or unfavorable suitability information.

8.  Documents provided by the applicant indicate that a National Agency
Check investigation was completed on 26 July 2002 and that a final secret
security clearance was granted on 31 July 2003.

9.  A 6 January 2004 memorandum to the applicant informed her that she had
been promoted to major effective 27 April 2003.  No explanation for the
effective date was provided in the notification memorandum.

10.  In the processing of this application an advisory opinion was obtained
from the Military Personnel Actions Branch at the United States Army Human
Resources Center in St. Louis, Missouri.  The advisory opinion reiterated
the requirements for an individual to be promoted that were identified in
the
9 September 1999 memorandum.  It also stated the applicant was not assigned
to a higher grade position until 2 April 2002 and did not have a valid Army
Physical Fitness Test until 27 April 2002.  The advisory opinion did not
comment on the reason the applicant was not promoted until 27 April 2003,
or the date of her final security clearance.

11.  The applicant was provided an opportunity to comment on the advisory
opinion but no comment was received.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Information available to the Board is limited and neither the applicant
nor the advisory opinion specifically addresses the basis for selecting 27
April 2003 as the date of her promotion to major.

2.  Based on the information which is available, however, it can be
concluded with relative certainty, that the applicant did not meet at least
some of the requirements to be promoted on her original 11 March 2000
eligibility date.  The fact that the applicant did not question the
promotion until after the 6 January 2004 memorandum announced her promotion
supports this conclusion as does the applicant's argument that the delay
was unfairly caused, as she notes, by the long and arduous process of
securing a security clearance.

3.  The advisory opinion from officials at the United States Army Human
Resources Command suggest that the delay in the applicant's promotion was
linked to her lack of being assigned to a higher grade position and not
having a valid physical fitness test.

4.  The applicant's argument and the information contained in the advisory
opinion that a current security clearance is required in order to be
promoted is not entirely accurate based on the information in Army
Regulation 135-155.  The regulation does not indicate a current security
clearance is required, but rather, only a security screening and then a
National Agency Check if derogatory or unfavorable suitability information
is revealed during that screening.  If it was determined that the National
Agency Check was necessary the promotion would be withheld until the
results of the National Agency Check were received.  In the applicant's
case the National Agency Check investigation was completed in July 2002 and
her clearance granted a year later in July 2003.  Neither date is
consistent with the 27 April 2003 date the applicant was finally promoted.

5.  While it is possible there are other issues associated with the
applicant's delayed promotion date, the best available information to the
Board suggests she could have been promoted as early as 27 April 2002 when
she obtained a valid physical fitness test score or as late as 31 July 2003
when the National Agency Check was finalized by the granting of her secret
security clearance.



6.  Because the advisory opinion made no mention of the fact the
applicant's security clearance was not finalized until July 2003, but did
mention the April 2002 date of her valid Army Physical Fitness Test score,
it is reason to conclude the 27 April 2002 date was the date the applicant
should have been promoted.  It is also possible the January 2004 promotion
memorandum merely contained a typographical error by indicating her
promotion date as 27 April 2003 vice
27 April 2002.

7.  While it would clearly be inappropriate to change the applicant's
promotion date to 11 March 2000 as she requests, there is sufficient
evidence to justify correcting her promotion date to 27 April 2002, the
date officials from the United States Army Human Resources Command noted
she obtained a valid Army Physical Fitness Test score.

8.  The applicant also noted in her application that she was promised
constructive service credit based on her years of work experience as a
nurse with a Bachelor of Science Degree.  Information contained in
applicable regulations, however, indicate she did not meet the advanced
degree requirements necessary for nursing candidates to receive such
credit.  In the absence of evidence confirming she did meet eligibility
requirements and evidence that the Office of The Surgeon General ruled on a
request from her for such credit, there is no basis for the Board to grant
that portion of her application.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__SP ___  ___RD __  __JM ___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by showing that she was promoted to major effective
27 April 2002 vice 27 April 2003.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
correcting her effective date of promotion to major to 11 March 2000 and
constructive service credit based on her prior work experience.




                                  _____ Shirley Powell_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001921                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050913                                |
|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.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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