RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002984


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |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 adjustment to her date of rank for first
lieutenant from 13 June 2003 to 10 February 2002.

2.  The applicant states that she was awarded 1 year, 11 months, and 20
days constructive service credit (CSC) and therefore was eligible to be
promoted 10 days after she was commissioned.  There is no way she could
complete an officer basic course (OBC) and obtain a security clearance in
that amount of time.  Her date of rank for first lieutenant was backdated
to the date she completed OBC.

3.  The applicant provides copies of her Appointment Memorandum; her CSC
Calculator; US Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) – St. Louis, Missouri;
her Memorandum For Record, Subject: Date of Rank Adjustment, dated 14 July
2004; and her promotion memorandum for first lieutenant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that she was appointed in the
United States Army Reserve, Army Nurse Corps, as a second lieutenant
effective 31 January 2002, with 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days CSC.  Based
on the awarded CSC her date of rank for second lieutenant was adjusted to
11 February 2000.

2.  Based on the required 2 years minimum time in grade (TIG), her
promotion eligibility date (PED) for first lieutenant was 10 February 2002.

3.  She completed the Army Medical Department OBC effective 13 June 2003.

4.  In a Memorandum For Record, dated 14 July 2004, the Chief, Military
Personnel Actions Branch, AHRC – St. Louis, stated that the applicant was
not promoted on her PED of 20 February 2001[sic], because all promotion
qualifications were not met.  The effective date of promotion was 13 June
2003 at which time she completed OBC and met all qualifications in
accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-8.

5.  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.

6.  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 2002,
with 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days CSC.  Based on an adjustment of her
appointment date from 31 January 2002 to 11 February 2000 and 2 years TIG
requirement, her PED to first lieutenant was 10 February 2002.  She had not
completed an OBC or obtained a security clearance on 10 February 2002;
therefore, she was not eligible for promotion at that time.  It is
unfortunate the applicant's PED was within one month of her appointment;
however, Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-8, clearly states promotion
to first lieutenant will not be earlier than the date the officer is
qualified for promotion.  The applicant obtained a clearance on 17 January
2003 and completed OBC on 13 June 2003.  She was promoted on orders dated
14 July 2004, with a date of rank of 13 June 2003.  Based on the completion
date of OBC, 13 June 2003, was the earliest date of rank the applicant was
eligible for.  In view of the facts presented, it was recommended that the
applicant's request be disapproved.

7.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement
and/or rebuttal on 16 June 2005.  She did not respond.

8.  Army Regulation 135-101, prescribes the policies, procedures and
eligibility criteria for appointment of commissioned officers in the
Reserve, in the six branches of the Army Medical Department.  This
regulation specifies that an applicant must have been the subject of a
National Agency Check or investigation.  The appointment authority will
initiate the National Agency Check and the Federal Bureau of Investigations
Name Check for appointees without concurrent call to active duty, if not
previously accomplished.  If, as a result of completion of the post
commissioning investigative processes, an individual is unacceptable for
appointment as a commissioned officer, the officer will be discharged.

9.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the
promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that an officer
in the grade of second lieutenant will be considered for promotion without
review by a promotion selection board.  Promotion to first lieutenant
requires completion of 2 years time in grade and completion of a branch
OBC.  The officer's records will be screened to determine eligibility for
promotion to first lieutenant far enough in advance to permit promotion on
the date promotion service is completed.  The promotion authorities will
ensure all requirements are met before announcing a promotion.  Paragraph 4-
8 of this regulation specifies that the promotion will not be earlier than
the date the officer is determined qualified for promotion.  A MFR

will be prepared to explain the later promotion date.  A copy of the
promotion notice and the Memorandum For Record will be placed in the
officer's official military personnel file.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not
entitled to adjustment to her date of rank for first lieutenant.  She has
not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.

2.  The applicant was appointed on 31 January 2002 and based on the award
of 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days CSC, her date of rank for second
lieutenant was adjusted to 11 February 2000.  Notwithstanding the fact that
her PED for first lieutenant was within one month of her appointment, she
was required to complete a branch OBC for promotion to first lieutenant and
meet all promotion qualifications; therefore, she was not eligible on her
PED of 11 February 2002, but on the date she completed her branch OBC on 13
June 2003.

3.  It is also noted that through no fault of the applicant, an interim
clearance was not obtained within a reasonable amount of time from the
date of her appointment on 31 January 2002 and the applicant was not
advised until 14 July 2003, that she could not be promoted on her PED
because all promotion qualifications were not met.  Possession of a
security clearance was not the reason for her promotion delay.  She was
awarded a security clearance on 17 January 2003 and completed her branch
OBC on 13 June 2003; therefore, 13 June 2003, was the earliest date of
rank she was eligible for.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JM____  _LE____  __JED___  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.




                                  ____   Lester Echols_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002984                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/11/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |131.05                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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