RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006867 


	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.  




Director


Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:



Chairperson



Member



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 Active Duty Date of Rank (ADOR) as a major be adjusted to correspond with the effective date of his federal recognition in the Army National Guard (ARNG) as a major.  Based on this correction, he further requests that his DOR to lieutenant colonel be adjusted.

2.  The applicant states that Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 165-17, Chaplain Personnel Management, Table 2-1, line 6, states that chaplains will be “order[ed] to AD with DOR equal to active status portion of Reserve DOR.”  His initial orders accepted his Reserve service in establishing his ADOR, but his orders were later amended in contravention with DA Pamphlet 165-17.

3.  The applicant provides excerpts from his military records and excerpts from Army Regulation 600-8-29.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was afforded federal recognition in the Army National Guard (ARNG) as a chaplain in the rank of major, effective 23 June 1997.

2.  On 4 January 1999, the applicant entered active duty.

3.  On 6 September 2000, Order Number 250-007 was published which amended the applicant’s ADOR from 4 January 1999 to 23 June 1997.

4.  On 3 May 2001, Order Number 123-065 was published which announced that a determination was made that the applicant’s ADOR was 4 January 1999.

5.  The applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 1 June 2006.

6.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Chief of Chaplains who stated that Army Pamphlet 165-17, 
Table 2-1, states that “an officer accessioned to active duty from the Reserves as a MAJ has constructive service of 14 years or more but less than 21 years and is ordered to AD with an ADOR equal to EAD on AD Order.”  As such, the applicant was accessioned onto active duty as a major with an ADOR as his date of entry on active duty, 6 January 1999.

7.  The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and submitted a response.  In his response he stated that his ADOR should have been determined by Army Regulation 600-8-29, and not under the conflicting guidance of Army Pamphlet 165-17.  The applicant argues that under the one Army concept, his date of Federal recognition to major should have been accepted as his ADOR.

8.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 165–17, Chaplain Personnel, paragraph 
1–1, Purpose, states that “This pamphlet contains procedures and provides guidance for implementing chaplain personnel management policy established in applicable Army Regulations (ARs).  It sets standards and gives direction for accessioning, assigning, and managing personnel in the chaplain branch of the United States Army.  The United States Army refers to all active, Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), and United States Army Reserve (USAR) soldiers, their family members, Department of the Army civilians, and other authorized personnel.  

9.  Table 2–1 of this Pamphlet, Appointment Grade and Date of Rank Determination, states that for the purpose of establishing ADOR, an officer assessed from the Reserves as a major with 14 years or more but less than 21 years will be ordered to active duty with ADOR equal to the date entered active duty as specified on the active duty order.

10.  Army Regulation 600–8–29, Personnel—General, Officer Promotions, paragraphs 1-36 and 1-37, are general explanations of what an ADOR is and the importance of the ADOR.  Paragraphs 1-39 and 1-40 provides general guidance on the establishment of ADOR for Other Than Regular Army (OTRA) officers.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-24, states that a Reserve officer in the grade of major that failed selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the second time, separation will be the latter of (a) The first day of the month after the month is which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned service or; (b) The first day of the seventh month after the board that considered the officer for the second time receives final approval authority, unless the officer has a service remaining obligation, or is retained under other provisions of law.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s ADOR was properly established in accordance with Department of the Army Pamphlet 165–17.

2.  Army Regulation 600–8–29 is a promotion regulation and provides general guidelines.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 165–17 contains the policies and procedures for implementing the chaplain personnel management established in applicable Army Regulations.  It sets standards and gives direction for accessioning, assigning, and managing personnel in the chaplain branch of the United States Army.
3.  Since Department of the Army Pamphlet 165-17 is the overarching regulation when dealing with chaplains, the Board concurs with the Office of the Chaplain that the applicant’s ADOR as a major was properly his date of entry on active duty.

4.  While it is regrettable that an error was made in the establishment of the applicant’s ADOR when he entered active duty, that ADOR was an error and was appropriately corrected when it was discovered.

5.  The applicant’s contention that under the one Army concept his date of Federal recognition to major should have been accepted as his ADOR is noted.  However, many factors come into play in the establishment of an ADOR for an officer being accessed on the active duty list from the Reserves.  For example, an officer who has an ADOR established which credits him with 2 years he served while assigned to a troop program unit would be at a disadvantage with other officers who have served the entire period on active duty when being considered by a promotion board.  Since a failure to be promoted twice requires the removal of an officer, establishing an ADOR which includes Reserve service not on active duty may be a disservice to the affected officer.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____wfc__  ____ded_  ____hof__  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.





_________Hubert O. Fry Jr._______
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060006867
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20060213
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.