Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003331C070206
Original file (20050003331C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003331


      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. David S. Griffin              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann Jr.         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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, in effect, that his date of rank (DOR) for
major be corrected to 19 July 1999 instead of 19 July 2000.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that:

      a.  he was not promoted with his peers to major due to his promotion
package reflecting that he was "not educationally qualified" in 1999;

      b.  all of his required education was validated in 2000 and he was
promoted a year behind his peers;

      c.  he had called the major Special Selection Board and resubmitted
his bachelor and master degree transcripts to them;

      d.  he was then promoted to major in 2000;

      e.  he wrote to the Special Selection Board and resubmitted a packet
for adjusting his DOR to 1999.  However, he states there was no favorable
action;

      f.  in 2003 he filed for a correction of military record and received
no response; and

      g.  he has been deployed all of 2004.

3.  The applicant provides excerpts from his military records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he was commissioned a second
lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 20 May 1988, and ordered to
3 years active duty on 29 July 1988.  On 14 May 1990, the applicant was
appointed a second lieutenant in the Regular Army (RA) and on 8 August 1990
he was promoted to first lieutenant effective 19 September 1990.  The
applicant was promoted to captain with an effective date of 1 January 1993.

2.  On 5 January 1995, the applicant was discharged from the RA and
accepted a commission as a captain in the USAR.

3.  On 1 September 1999, the applicant was ordered to active duty for a
period
of 3 years, with a reporting date of 17 January 2000.

4.  On 14 January 2000, the applicant was notified by U.S. Total Army
Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (now known as Human Resources Command [HRC])
that he was not selected for promotion by the 1999 Department of the Army
(DA) Reserve Components Major Selection Board because the records reviewed
did not indicate that he had completed the required civilian and/or
military education by the day the board convened on 2 March 1999.

5.  On 14 August 2000, the applicant was notified by PERSCOM that he was
promoted to major effective 19 July 2000 with a DOR of 19 July 2000.

6.  On 12 April 2001, the applicant was notified by PERSCOM that an Army
Special Selection Board had considered his record for promotion under the
1999 Selection Board criteria.  However, the applicant was not selected for
promotion by the Special Selection Board.

7.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion, dated 7 August
2005, was provided by the Chief, Promotions Branch Office of Promotions,
Reserve Components, HRC.  A copy of that opinion was provided to the
applicant in order to allow him to submit comment or rebuttal.  He was
provided 30 days to respond, but as of 17 November 2005 he had not
responded.

8.  HRC stated that the applicant's promotion eligibility date (PED) to
major
was 31 December 1999.  HRC states that, based on his PED, the applicant was
considered and non-selected by the 1999 DA Reserve Components Major
Selection Board based on the non-availability of the applicant's completion
of civilian education and highest military education for the board to view.
 He was then considered by an August 2000 DA Special Selection Board using
the 1999 criteria.  HRC states that the applicant was not selected by the
special board and that the reasons are unknown because board deliberations
are not a matter of record.

9.  HRC further stated that the applicant was selected for promotion by the

2000 DA Reserve Components Major Selection Board and promoted with a DOR of
19 July 2000, the date the board was President approved.

10.  There are no orders in the records available to the Board that show
the applicant's unit of assignment or that the unit is deployed.

11.  Chapter 1407 of Title 10 of the United States Code governs special
selection boards and correction of errors.  Subsection 14502e(2) states
that an officer who is promoted to the next higher grade as the result of a
special selection board convened under this section shall, upon such
promotion, have the same date of rank, the same effective date for the pay
and allowances of that grade, and the same position on the reserve active-
status list as the officer would have had if the officer had been
recommended for promotion to that grade by the selection board which would
have considered, or did consider, the officer.

12.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and
Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) states, in pertinent part,
that in no case, will the officer's DOR or effective date of promotion be
earlier than the date the board is approved, or if required, the date of
Senate confirmation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his date of rank (DOR) to major should be
corrected to 19 July 1999 instead of 19 July 2000.  The applicant contends
that he was not promoted with his peers because his educational
requirements were not provided to the board.

2.  The evidence shows that because his educational requirements were not
provided to the 1999 DA Reserve Components MAJ Selection Board, he was
considered by the August 2000 DA Special Selection Board under the 1999
criteria.  This Special Selection Board did not select the applicant for
promotion.  Therefore, changing the applicant's DOR to 19 July 1999 is not
appropriate.

3.  Based on the applicant's selection for promotion by the 2000 DA Reserve
Components Major Selection Board, his DOR cannot be before the date the
board was approved.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's DOR is correct.

5.  A search of the ABCMR files did not show a previous application to the
ABCMR submitted by the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____jns__  ___phm_  ___ljo____  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 N. Slone_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

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


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006357C070205

    Original file (20060006357C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Roland Venable | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides a copy of a promotion memorandum from the U.S. Army Total Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM)-St. Louis, dated 12 May 1993, which shows that he was promoted to captain 26 May 1993. The opinion stated that the applicant was first time considered for captain and selected on the 1993 Captain DA Reserve Components Selection Board which convened...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019716

    Original file (20080019716.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This HRC-St. Louis promotion official stated that the applicant was REFRAD and transferred to the USAR on 12 May 1999, prior to his promotion eligibility date (PED). The HRC-St. Louis, Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, RC, further states that had the applicant been assigned to a higher graded position upon his 12 May 1999 discharge from the RA and transferred to the USAR he would have been eligible for promotion to CPT on his PED of 1 July 1999, or had he remained...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051136C070420

    Original file (2001051136C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant was considered by the next available Reserve CW3 Promotion Board, the FY94 promotion board, but was not selected for promotion. The effective date for the applicant’s promotion to CW3 from the FY95 board His present promotion memorandum to CW4, dated 1 August 2000, should be corrected to be dated 19 May 2000, the adjournment date of the promotion board and therefore the effective date for promotion to CW4 and the date from which CW4 pay and allowances should be paid.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072145C070403

    Original file (2002072145C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 3 January 2000, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072410C070403

    Original file (2002072410C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 19 July 2000, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066258C070421

    Original file (2001066258C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The opinion also stated that since the applicant met the time in grade (TIG) requirement on 25 June 1999, it is recommended that he be issued a corrected promotion order with a DOR of 25 June 1999, and an effective date of 3 January 2000. Chapter 1405 (Promotions), section 14304 of the ROPMA law, states that officers who are on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a), a Reserve...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010310

    Original file (20060010310.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The 16 August 2005 memorandum indicates the applicant was selected for promotion to MAJ by a SSB under the 2004 criteria with an effective date of 21 March 2005. Notwithstanding the National Guard Bureau recommendation that the applicant's DOR be adjusted from 23 August 2005 to 15 March 2005 based on Orders 081-054, dated 22 March 2005, it would be equitable to adjust the applicant's DOR to MAJ from 25 August 2005 to 2 June 2004 based on the information received from the COARNG that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090373C070212

    Original file (2003090373C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer will complete those years of service. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080020071

    Original file (20080020071.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of major be adjusted from 19 July 2000 to 19 April 2006. He continues by stating that on 1 January 2002, he was honorably discharged in error as a captain from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) because he was twice non-selected for promotion to the rank of major due to not meeting the educational requirements for promotion. It is also noted that from the time the applicant accepted a Reserve commission in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080387C070215

    Original file (2002080387C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In his letter of support, he requests that his original DOR of 1 July 1999, be reinstated under the provisions of Title 10, United States (US) Code, section 741, paragraph D, which allows for DORs to be adjusted for officers returning to active duty (AD) regarding qualifications and experience. His DOR was adjusted upon his return to AD to a date of 25 March 2001 to...