RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000901


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Melinda M. Darby              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 for the grade
of first lieutenant be adjusted from 5 February 2003 to 13 March 2001.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the primary reason for being in
the grade of second lieutenant for 4 years was that it took over 2 years to
process an interim security clearance.  He continues that after an interim
clearance was granted on 27 January 2003, he was promoted to the grade of
first lieutenant on 5 February 2003, and granted full clearance on 4
November 2003.

3.  The applicant further states that the documents submitted illustrate
the delay in the initiation of his background investigation for his
clearance and promotion.  The documents show:

      a.  delayed submission of his questionnaire and investigation
requests after they were forwarded through the appropriate channels;

      b.  after corrections were made to the second request, it was
returned through the appropriate channels;

      c.  the investigation was finally initiated approximately 8 months
after the second request was returned to Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) and temporary clearance was granted on 4 November 2003; and

      d.  that during the spring of 2000 while taking the Army Medical
Department (AMEDD) Officer Basic Course (OBC), the AMEDD Center and School
initiated the security clearance investigation; however, it was dismissed.
The applicant stated that he was informed that the effort would resume when
he returned to the reserve unit command, but it was not initiated until he
inquired about the promotion process to the grade of first lieutenant
several months after his graduation.

4.  The applicant provided a memorandum for record, dated 6 October 2005;
an excerpt from Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers
and Warrant Officers other than General Officers); a coversheet from the
United States Army Reserve (USAR), dated 28 August 2001; a USAR Personnel
Command promotion notification letter, dated 18 April 2003; six pages from
the Total Army Personnel Database (TAPDB) Transaction History; a copy of an
undated data screen synopsis; a Projected Promotion Eligibility Date
calculator from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command website; an
appointment letter from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, dated
18 March 1999; a DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel), dated
18 March 1999; a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report),
dated 11 April 2000; an Unacceptable Case Notice, dated 3 August 2001; an
OPM Security Clearance Application, dated 24 July 2001; a OPM Security
Clearance Application, dated 12 March 2002; an Investigation Scheduled
Notice, dated 4 June 2002; and a DA Form 873 (Certificate of Clearance
and/or Security Determination), dated 4 November 2003, in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 18 March 1999, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned
Officer of the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

2.  The applicant completed the Reserve Component AMEDD OBC on 11 April
2000.

3.  On 24 July 2001, the applicant submitted a Standard Form 86 (Office of
Personnel Management Security Clearance Application).

4.  On 3 August 2001, the applicant was notified that the paperwork
requesting a personnel investigation required correction(s) and/or to be
completed.  This form shows that further background information was
required.

5.  The applicant submitted a coversheet, dated 28 August 2001, which shows
the applicant's request for a clearance investigation was returned without
action.  This form further shows that corrections needed to be made to the
application and once corrected, the request may be returned to OPM for
processing.

6.  On 12 March 2002, the applicant resubmitted a Standard Form 86 through
his chain of command.

7.  The applicant submitted a TAPDB Soldier Transaction History.  This
history shows that on 3 January 2003, the applicant called for guidance
regarding his security clearance and stated that the request was submitted
through his unit over a year ago; however, it was not shown on the system,
and that his promotion was suspended due to "no security clearance."  On 7
January 2003, an entry shows that per OPM, the National Agency Check with
Local Agency and Credit Check (NACLC) investigation only needed a subject
interview and that the applicant needed to fax the request for an interim
promotion.  On 18 April 2003, an entry shows the applicant's promotion was
suspended for lacking security clearance.

8.  On 18 April 2003, the U.S. Army Reserve Command promoted the applicant
to the rank of first lieutenant effective 5 February 2003.

9.  A Certificate of Clearance and/or Security Determination, dated 4
November 2003, shows the applicant's background investigation was completed
on 11 June 2003 and the final clearance was granted on 4 November 2003.

10.  The applicant submitted a statement, dated 6 October 2005, wherein he
stated that significant dates in the accompanying documents illustrated the
delayed initiation of his background investigation for his security
clearance and subsequently his promotion to first lieutenant was nearly 4
years after being commissioned as a second lieutenant on 13 March 1999.

11.  The applicant continued that the primary reasons for the delay of the
background investigation were: delayed assistance and submission of the
request for an investigation by a security officer; after corrections were
made on a second request it was returned without action; the documents were
not resubmitted to OPM for approximately 7 months due to an oversight
acknowledged by the security officer; and the investigation was finally
initiated approximately 8 months after the documents were resubmitted and a
clearance was granted on 4 November 2003, which was 2 years beyond his
submission of the corrected application.

12.  The applicant stated he was granted an interim clearance on 27 January
2003 and promoted to first lieutenant effective 5 February 2003.  He
continued that adjustment of his date of rank for the grade of first
lieutenant is justified because he met the time in service requirement as a
second lieutenant.  The applicant also stated that this action would make
him eligible for promotion to the grade of captain in January 2006.

13.  Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant
Officers of the Army) prescribes policy and procedures used in the
selection and promotion of commissioned and warrant officers of the U.S.
Army Reserve.  Paragraph 1-6h states that applicant will have as a minimum,
a Secret security clearance prior to being tendered an appointment.
Special background investigations and final clearances may take up to 12
months to complete.  As an exception, health professionals, chaplains, and
attorneys may be commissioned in the Reserve Components prior to completion
of a National Agency Check/DOD National Agency Check Plus Written Inquiries
(NAC/DNACI) provided that a NAC/DNACI is initiated at the time an
application for a
commission is submitted; and the applying health professional, chaplain, or
attorney agrees in writing that, if the results of the investigation are
unfavorable, he or she will be subject to discharge if found to be
ineligible to hold a commission.

14.  Chapter 2 of Army Regulation 135-155 contains guidance on promotion
eligibility and qualification requirements.  The time in grade requirement
for promotion to first lieutenant is a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of
5 years.  Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on the military education
requirement for promotion.  It states, in pertinent part, that in order to
be promoted to first lieutenant, an officer must complete the Officer Basic
Course.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that his date of rank for first lieutenant be
adjusted from 5 February 2003 to 13 March 2001.

2.  Regulation states that the time in grade requirement for promotion to
first lieutenant is a minimum of 2 years and that the officer must have
completed the Officer Basic Course prior to eligibility for promotion to
the next higher grade.

3.  Evidence shows the applicant was commissioned on 18 March 1999 and
completed the AMEDD Officer Basic Course on 11 April 2000.

4.  Through no fault of the applicant, the background investigation for his
security clearance took over two years to complete due to corrections,
resubmissions, and delayed processing.

5.  In view of the evidence, the applicant served the minimum time-in-grade
and met the educational requirements for promotion to the grade of first
lieutenant on 17 March 2001.  Therefore, it will be in the interest of
justice to correct the applicant's records to adjust his date of rank for
the grade of first lieutenant to show 17 March 2001.

6.  It would also be appropriate to place the applicant’s records before a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion consideration under the
criteria used by the FY 2006 Captain DA Reserve Component Selection Board.
Further, if he is selected for promotion by the SSB, his captain promotion
effective date and date of rank should be established as if he had been
originally selected, and he should be provided all back pay and allowances
due as a result.  If not selected, he should be so notified.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

_RDG__  _JCR___  _MMD____  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 by:

      a.  adjusting his date of rank for the grade of first lieutenant to
show 17 March 2001;

      b.  submitting his records before a Special Selection Board for
promotion consideration to the grade of captain under the criteria followed
by the FY 2006 Department of the Army, Captain, Reserve Components
Selection Boards;

      c.  if selected for promotion to captain by the Special Selection
Board, by establishing his captain promotion effective date and date of
rank as if he had been originally selected, and by providing any back pay
and allowances due as a result; and


      d.  if not selected for promotion he should be so notified.


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
adjust his date of rank to 13 March 2001.




                                     __Melinda M. Darby __
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000901                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Shatzer                             |
|ISSUES         1.  315  |131.0500.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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