RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001796


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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 that his date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant
(1LT) be adjusted from 23 November 2002 to 30 (sic) August 2002.

2.  The applicant states he was commissioned as a second lieutenant (2LT)
on 26 August 2000 through the Louisiana National Guard State Officer
candidate School program.  After completing the Officer Basic Course in May
2001, he relocated from Louisiana to Texas.  He decided to join the 75th
Division [U. S. Army Reserve (USAR)].  His DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action)
was completed in September 2001 giving him a position in the 75th Division;
however, the Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG) did not release him
until 8 April 2002 and his first drill was not until July 2002.  The
standard time in grade for promotion to 1LT is 2 years or 18 months.  As it
stands now, he is a full cycle behind his contemporaries.

3.  The applicant provides his promotion memorandum, dated 25 March 2003;
his ARNG separation orders; a DA Form 368 (Request for Conditional Release)
dated 7 September 2001; a DA Form 4187 dated 15 August 2001; a DA Form 1059
(Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for the period ending 8 May
2001; Federal Recognition orders dated 7 September 2000; appointment orders
dated 9 August 2000; discharge orders dated 9 August 2000; a National Guard
Bureau (NGB) Form 337 (Oaths of Office) dated 27 August 2000; an NGB Form
62-E (Application for Federal Recognition as an Army National Guard Officer
or Warrant Officer and Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer or
Warrant Officer of the Army in the Army National Guard of the United
States); a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty) for the period ending  16 December 1988; and a 25 March 2003 U. S.
Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) memorandum for record (MFR).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service in the USAR and the ARNG, the
applicant was commissioned as a 2LT in the USAR, Corps of Engineers, and
accepted appointment as a 2LT in the LAARNG on 27 August 2000.

2.  The applicant’s Engineer Officer Basic Course Academic Evaluation
Report for the period ending 8 May 2001 shows he passed the Army Physical
Fitness Test (APFT) in March 2001 and met the Army’s height and weight
standards.

3.  On 7 September 2001, the applicant requested conditional release from
his ARNG unit for assignment to the USAR.  His request was approved by the
LAARNG on 8 April 2002.  He was separated from the ARNG on 30 June 2002 and
assigned to the USAR on 1 July 2002.

4.  By memorandum dated 25 March 2003, AR-PERSCOM informed the applicant
that he was promoted to 1LT, as a Reserve Commissioned Officer       of the
Army, effective, and with a DOR of, 23 November 2002.  A related         AR-
PERSCOM MFR indicated the applicant was not promoted at his promotion
eligibility date of 26 August 2002 because all promotion qualifications
were not met on that date.  The effective date of his promotion was 23
November 2002 because that was the date when the APFT and maximum allowable
weight (MAW) requirements were met.

5.  The applicant’s Officer Evaluation Report for the period 30 June 2002
through 29 June 2003 shows he passed the APFT in April 2003 and met the
Army’s MAW standards.  There is no evaluation report(s) for the period 9
May 2001 through 29 June 2002 filed in his records as of 29 September 2006.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, U. S Army Human Resources
Command – St Louis (formerly designated AR-PERSCOM).  That office noted
that the applicant had been considered and selected by the 2002 1LT
Administrative Board which convened on 10 June 2002.  He was given an
effective date of promotion of 23 November 2002 because that was the date
he passed his APFT and met the MAW standards.

7.  The advisory opinion went on to note that a new policy went into effect
on       1 February 2005 that waives an updated security clearance and
current physical. However, that was not the case in 2002.  The advisory
opinion noted that the applicant did not meet the standards until 23
November 2002, and it recommended denial of his request for an earlier DOR.

8.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He rebutted that he was not notified about the 2002
1LT Administrative Board which convened on 10 June 2002.  He stated that
the advisory opinion stated that he had to provide an up-to-date security
clearance, current physical, and be within weight standards.  He rebutted
that he was never contacted by the board requesting that he produce the
documents in question.  He stated his
security clearance was issued in August 2000 and is good for 10 years.  He
had just gone through a pre-commissioning physical in March of 1999, and
physicals are good for 5 years.

9.  The applicant also rebutted that, when he transferred from the USAR to
the LAARNG in 1992, the whole process took less than one month.  Now, 9
years later when he attempted to transfer from the LAARNG to the USAR, the
process took 10 months.  He stated that the ARNG and the USAR have a
slightly different time schedule.  The LAARNG takes its APFT once a year.
The USAR takes its APFT twice a year.  If he had been released from the
ARNG within 6 months of his request, he would have been able to get in
synch with his current [USAR] unit’s training schedule.  His USAR unit
takes its APFT in April and October.  During October 2002, bad weather
delayed the unit’s APFT until November 2002.  That was the date he took his
first APFT with the 75th Division.  If he had been released from the ARNG
within six months of his request, he would have been able to get in synch
with his USAR unit’s training schedule.  He was in promotion peril and did
not know it.  In addition, without proper documentation, he could not
justify requesting an APFT when the unit’s biannual APFT was only two
months away.

10.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and
Warrant Officers other than General Officers), paragraph 2-1 states that an
officer in the grade of 1LT will be considered for promotion without review
by a selection board.  The officer’s records will be screened to determine
eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to
permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed.  The records
of ARNG unit officers will be screened and promotions accomplished by the
Chief, NGB.  No provisions are made for officers to be notified when an
administrative board will be held to screen 2LT records to determine
eligibility for promotion to 1LT.

11.  Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-11 states that an officer who has
been recommended for promotion must meet all of several specified
requirements, including meeting the Army’s MAW standards and passing the
APFT within the period required (unless it was not taken through no fault
of the individual).

12.  Army Regulation 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development),
paragraph 1-24e states the Active Army and Active Guard Reserve Soldiers
and USAR Troop Program Unit Soldiers will take the APFT at least twice each
calendar year.  Soldiers in ARNG units will take the APFT at least once
each calendar year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s two primary contentions -- that his delayed promotion
to 1LT was caused by his LAARNG unit’s failure to process his request for
transfer to the USAR in a timely manner and the different APFT requirements
between the ARNG and the USAR -- have been carefully considered.

2.  While the advisory opinion noted that an updated security clearance and
current physical were required at the time the applicant was due for
promotion, it is acknowledged that there is no evidence to show he did not
meet those requirements.  As indicated in the 25 March 2003 AR-PERSCOM MFR,
the applicant was not promoted on 26 August 2002 because it was not until
         23 November 2002 that he met the APFT and MAW requirements.

3.  It is also acknowledged that ARNG Soldiers are only required to take
the APFT once a year, while USAR Army Soldiers are required to take it
twice a year.

4.  To have met the APFT and MAW requirements by 26 August 2002 under ARNG
standards, the applicant would have had to pass an APFT no earlier than 26
August 2001.  However, the available evidence of record, as shown by the
available evaluation reports, shows the applicant previously passed the
APFT in March 2001.  His next annual APFT would have been due around March
2002.  There is no evidence of record to show he took an annual APFT at
that time.

5.  In the absence of any evidence to show the applicant passed the APFT
and met the MAW requirements between 26 August 2001 and 26 August 2002,
there is insufficient evidence to show he was eligible for promotion to 1LT
any earlier than 23 November 2002.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jbg___  __mjf___  __swf___  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.




                                  __James B. Gunlicks___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001796                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061005                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.05                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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