RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            10 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050004525


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawly A. Sabree               |     |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 her date of rank (DOR) to
lieutenant colonel (LTC) be changed to 4 February 2003.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, when the promotion list was published
she was under medical care and could not proceed on her permanent change of
station (PCS) until 19 July 2003, which is her current LTC DOR.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  Self-Authored Letter; Medical Treatment Record, dated 1
November 2002; Consultation Sheet (DD Form 2161), dated 15 April 2003;
Physical Profile
(DA Form 3349), dated 9 December 2002; Medical Treatment Record, dated 15
April 2003; Commander Support Letter, dated 7 March 2005; and Executive
Officer Support Letter, dated 8 March 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that, while she was serving on active duty
in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status as a member of the United States
Army Reserve (USAR), she was selected for promotion to LTC by a Reserve
Component Selection Board (RCSB) in 2002.

2.  On 20 August 2002, the applicant notified her USAR Personnel Management
Officer (PMO) that she would be requesting an extension of her tour through
May or June 2003 in order to allow her son to finish school.  At that time,
the applicant was advised that approval of the promotion list would likely
be in February and that in order for her to be promoted at that time, she
would have to be in a LTC position.  She was further informed that by
extending her tour, she would be delaying her promotion until that time.

3.  On 28 August 2002, the applicant informed her PMO that she would be
submitting another extension and that she was aware of the requirement to
be in a valid LTC position to be promoted.

4.  On 13 January 2003, the President approved the RCSB promotion list
containing the applicant’s name, and the results were released on 4
February 2003.

5.  On 20 July 2003, the applicant entered a valid LTC position, and on 23
July 2003, a United States Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis
(currently known as Human Resources Command (HRC), St, Louis) Memorandum
authorized the applicant’s promotion to LTC, effective and with a DOR of 20
July 2003, the date she assumed a valid position in the higher grade.

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the HRC, St. Louis, Chief, Special Actions, Office of
Promotions, Reserve Components (RC).  This official indicates that under
the provisions of the Reserve Officers Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), an
officer cannot be promoted until the promotion board has been approved by
the President of the United States, and in this case the promotion board
results were approved by the President on 13 January 2003 and released on 4
February 2003.  Further, the ROPMA requires that officers who have not
reached the maximum years in grade (MYIG), which for LTC is seven years,
may not be promoted until they are assigned to a valid LTC position.

7.  The HRC official further indicates that the information received from
the applicant’s PMO and the Soldier Management System confirms she
requested an extension of her current assignment as a major until May or
June 2003, in order to allow her son to finish school.  This official
further states that this information further verifies that the applicant
acknowledged her understanding that she could not be promoted until she was
in a valid LTC position and that her assignment to a LTC position would be
formalized in January with a report date in June 2003.  He finally
recommended that based on this information, the applicant’s request be
denied.

8.  On 16 November 2005, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the HRC,
St. Louis advisory opinion.  She indicates she is not denying that on 20
August 2002, she advised her PMO that she would be requesting an extension
in her current assignment in order to allow her son to finish school, and
acknowledged this would delay her promotion until she assumed a LTC
position.  However, she claims that her recovery from a 10 July 2002 knee
surgery stalled in November 2002, and created a continuity of care delay
issue.  She claims this fact is documented in electronic mail (e-mail)
messages between her, her career advisor, his supervisor, and the HRC St.
Louis command surgeon.  She also claims the advisory opinion clearly only
keyed in on her 20 August 2002 request for an extension and disregarded the
continuity of care issue.  She concludes by stating that her medical
condition is substantiated in supporting documents provided by Brooke Army
Medical Center, her commander and her executive officer, and she requests
her application be approved.

9.  The applicant provides a Physical Profile form that confirms she was
issued a permanent 2 profile based on her left knee condition on 9 December
2002.  She also provides medical treatment records from Brooke Army Medical
Center that supported the need for continuity of medical care with the
surgeon that performed her knee surgery through June 2003.

10.  The applicant also provides support letters from her battalion
commander and executive officer at the time.  These officials support her
request and confirm her outstanding performance of duty as the battalion
recruiting officer.  These members of the chain of command also confirm the
applicant’s medical records confirm the extensive medical care she received
and they also attest to the fact that she meticulously followed the
guidance of the attending physicians and coordinated with the Brooke Army
Medical Center staff.

11.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officer and Warrant
Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used
for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned
warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS)
and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the U.S. Army Reserve
(USAR).  Section III provides guidance on dates of promotion.

12.  Paragraph 4-21d of the USAR promotion regulation contains guidance on
the promotion of AGR officers.  It states that AGR officers selected by a
mandatory board will be promoted provided they are assigned/attached to a
position in the higher grade.  An AGR officer who is selected for promotion
by a mandatory promotion board, but who is not assigned/attached to a
position in the higher grade will be promoted on the date of
assignment/attachment to a higher graded position or the day after release
from AGR status. The date of rank will be the date the officer attained
maximum years in grade (MYIG), or the date on which assigned/attached to a
position in the higher grade, whichever is earlier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By law and regulation, the effective date of an AGR officer’s promotion
to LTC will be the date they assume a position in that higher grade, or on
the day following release from AGR status if they have reached the MYIG
requirement of seven years.  The DOR will be the date the officer attained
the MYIG, or the date they were assigned to a valid LTC position, whichever
is earlier.  In this case, the evidence shows the applicant was promoted to
major on 1 October 1996, and would not have attained the seven year MYIG
requirement for promotion to LTC until 30 September 2003.  It also confirms
she was promoted to LTC on 20 July 2003, the date she assumed a valid LTC
position in accordance with the applicable law and regulation.
2.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s need for continuity of medical care
based on her knee condition, she clearly expressed her desire to remain in
her assignment as a major through the summer of 2003 in order to allow her
son to finish school. As a result, her assignment to a valid LTC was
delayed prior to her establishing a need for continuity of medical care.
She acknowledged that this extension would result in a delay in her
promotion to LTC and accepted this delay before establishing a continuity
of medical care need.  The fact that this need was later is not
sufficiently mitigating to change her LTC promotion date and DOR, which was
properly established as the date she assumed a valid LTC position, at this
time.

3.  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

___KLW_  __DED __  ___QAS_  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.




            ____Kenneth L. Wright __
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004525                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.0700                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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