RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004549


      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. Ted S. Kanamine               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette B. McPherson         |     |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, correction to her promotion
effective date and date of rank for first lieutenant from 10 February 2005
to August 2003.

2.  The applicant states that being a new Soldier in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR), she was not advised until January 2003 that she needed a
security clearance to be promoted.  She was advised after completing the
officer basic course (OBC) in December 2000 that her promotion would be
automatic.  She turned in her security clearance in January 2003 and then
was mobilized in March 2003.  She tried to get an interim clearance and
received no answers.  She should have had at least 6 months after she
turned in her paperwork and therefore should have been promoted sooner.
This is her second deployment as a physician's assistant.

3.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show she was appointed in the USAR,
Dental Corps, as a second lieutenant, effective 10 February 1999, with 6
months and 27 days constructive service credit (CSC).  At the time of her
appointment her date of rank for second lieutenant was not adjusted to 13
July 1998, based on her awarded CSC.

2.  Based on the required 2 years minimum time in grade, her promotion
eligibility date (PED) for first lieutenant was 9 February 2000.   Based
on an adjusted date of rank for second lieutenant of 13 July 1998 and the
required 2 years minimum time in grade, her PED for first lieutenant would
have been 12 July 2000.

3.  She completed the Army Medical Department OBC effective 12 December
2000.

4.  In a memorandum, dated 31 January 2002, the Chief, Military Personnel
Actions Branch, Human Resources Command (HRC) – St. Louis, Missouri,
advised the 81st Regional Support Command (RSC), and the applicant, that
she was not in a promotable status due to the following disqualifications
found in the database:  she did not have an Oath of Office on file, she did
not have a current or failed the Army Physical Fitness (APFT) within the
period required by Army Regulation 350-4, she did not have an initial
Appointment Letter on file, she did not possess a valid security clearance,
and she was not assigned to a valid position for promotion.
5.  In a memorandum, dated 6 May 2002, the Chief, Military Personnel
Actions Branch, HRC, advised the 81st RSC, and the applicant, that her
promotion was suspended on 31 January 2002 because she did not meet the
previously cited qualifications.  Although the suspense date was 31 March
2002, no response had been received.  The database showed the applicant had
no security clearance.  A request for an interim clearance should be
forwarded to the HRC.  The database also showed the applicant was still
assigned to an invalid position. A copy of a Unit Manning Report (UMR) was
requested showing the applicant was assigned to a valid position.
Otherwise, immediate action must be taken to transfer her to the Individual
Ready Reserve (IRR) as required by Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-9.

6.  The memorandum also stated that the applicant's Appointment Memorandum
and Oath of Office were not available on the Permanent Electronic Records
Management System.  Copies of these documents must be provided in order to
promote the applicant.  Applicable documentation should be submitted to the
HRC no later than 6 July 2002.

7.  In a memorandum, dated 21 February 2003, the Chief, Military Personnel
Actions Branch, HRC, advised the 81st RSC, and the applicant, that her
promotion was initially suspended on 31 January 2002 because she did not
meet the specific qualifications.  No response was received; therefore,
another memorandum was sent to the 81st RSC and the applicant on 6 May
2002.  Unfortunately, there still had not been a response and the applicant
did not meet the promotion qualifications.  The database showed the
applicant has no security clearance.  As a member of her health profession
branch, she must have at least a favorable National Agency Check to retain
her commission.  Documentation was requested showing the applicant had the
required clearance.  If the officer still did not have a clearance, a
request for an interim clearance should be submitted to the HRC.

8.  The memorandum also stated the database additionally showed the
applicant was still assigned to an invalid position.  A copy of a UMR was
requested showing the applicant was assigned to a valid position.
Otherwise, immediate action must be taken to transfer her to the IRR as
required by Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-9.  Documentation showing
the applicant met promotion qualifications or a copy of orders
accomplishing her transfer to the IRR should be submitted to the HRC by 21
April 2003.

9.  In a memorandum, dated 21 February 2003, the Chief, Military Personnel
Actions Branch, HRC, advised the 81st RSC, and the applicant, that she was
not in a promotable status due to the following disqualifications found in
the database:  she did not have a current qualifying Physical Examination
(less than 5 years old), she did not possess a valid security clearance,
and she was not assigned to a valid position.

10.  A Promotion Memorandum, dated 10 February 2005, was issued to the
applicant showing her promotion effective date and date of rank for first
lieutenant was 1 February 2005.

11.  In an advisory opinion, dated 13 July 2005, the Chief, Promotions
Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command
(HRC) – St. Louis, Missouri, stated that on 31 January 2002, the Military
Personnel Actions Branch, HRC, notified the applicant at the 81st RSC, that
she was not in a promotable status due to the following disqualifications:
no DA Form 71, no current APFT, no initial Appointment Memorandum on file,
no valid security clearance, and no valid position assignment.  Additional
memorandums were sent on 6 May 2002, 21 February 2003, and again on 17
September 2004, reiterating the same non-compliance and suspension of
promotion action.  The 17 September 2004 memorandum stated the applicant
had no security clearance, no physical examination, and an invalid
position.

12.  The opinion also stated that on 1 February 2005, the Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, Washington, DC, authorized promotions of second
lieutenants to first lieutenant and warrant officer one's to chief warrant
officer two, in a policy change memorandum.  The policy memorandum
authorized these officers to be promoted and stated a security clearance or
physical examination was not required.  The policy memorandum stated that
officers that were considered with a past PED would be promoted with a date
of rank of 1 February 2005.  This was the date the exception was granted.
Since the applicant's PED was 9 February 2001, the applicant was given the
date of 1 February 2005.  Based on these facts, it was recommended the
applicant's request to have her date of rank amended to August 2003 be
denied.

13.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for
acknowledgement/
rebuttal on 11 August 2005.  She did not respond.

14.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the
promotion of Reserve officers.  The regulation specified that officers
appointed after 1 October 1996, for promotion to first lieutenant, required
completion of 2 years time in grade and completion of a branch OBC.  An
officer in the grade of second lieutenant will be considered for promotion
without review by a promotion selection board.  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 authority will ensure all promotion
qualifications are met, i.e., a current or failed the APFT within the
period required by Army Regulation 350-4, a valid security clearance, and
assignment to a valid position for promotion before announcing a promotion.

16.  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 AMEDD.  This regulation provides that
Dental Corps officers will be granted CSC.  For officers appointed with
less than 2 years CSC, the CSC will be used to adjust the officer's date of
rank within the appointed grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not
entitled to adjustment to her promotion effective date and date of rank for
first lieutenant.

2.  The applicant's contention that she was not advised she needed a
security clearance to be promoted has been noted.  However, the applicant
and her command were notified in several memorandums of her non-promotable
status and the specified disqualifications.  The applicant not possessing a
valid security clearance was not the only reason for her promotion delay.

3.  The applicant and her command were notified on 6 May 2002, 21 February
2003, and on 17 September 2004, that she was not in a promotable status due
to the following disqualifications:  no DA Form 71, no current APFT, no
initial Appointment Memorandum on file, no valid security clearance, and no
valid position assignment.  Pertinent regulations specify that possession
of a valid security clearance, a current or failed the APFT within the
period required by Army Regulation 350-4, and assignment to a valid
position is required for promotion to the next higher grade.

4.  On 1 February 2005, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1,
Washington, DC, authorized a policy change for the promotion of second
lieutenants to first lieutenant and warrant officers one to chief warrant
officer two when they met the 2 years TIG requirement and complete the OBC.
 The policy memorandum stated that officers that were considered with a
past PED would be promoted with a date of rank of 1 February 2005.  This
was the date the exception was granted. Since the applicant's PED was 9
February 2001, the applicant was given the date of 1 February 2005.


5.  Based on the promotion policy change, the applicant was promoted with
the earliest date to which she was entitled.  Therefore, her promotion
effective date and date of rank for first lieutenant were properly
established as the date that she was eligible for promotion and she has not
shown otherwise.

6.  The applicant was not given fair computation of her date of rank for
the awarded CSC at the time of her appointment.  However, based on the
circumstances, the applicant would not have been eligible for promotion to
first lieutenant by the time she had completed the required 2 years minimum
time in grade and any adjustment now would not entitle her to an earlier
date of rank for first lieutenant.  Therefore, there is no reason to adjust
her date of rank for second lieutenant at this time.  Any adjustment would
also not adjust her pay entry service date, which was the date she signed
her Oath of Office on
10 February 1999.

7.  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

__TSK___  _JBM___  __RLD__  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.




                                  _____Ted S. Kanamine_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004549                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051222                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |131.01                                  |
|3.                      |131.05                                  |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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