RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  21 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007518 


	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, in effect, that her date of rank to second lieutenant (2LT) be changed from 14 January 2004 to 12 December 2002, and that she be promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) with a date of rank of 12 December 2004, with back pay and allowances.

2.  The applicant essentially states that her initial appointment to 2LT was 
12 December 2002, but an error at the State level made it necessary to execute her oaths of office again on 14 January 2004.  She continues that the error caused a loss of 13 months and 2 days of time in grade.

3.  The applicant provides the following evidence in support of this application:

a.  a memorandum, dated 24 May 2006, from the State Surgeon of the Florida Army National Guard (ARNG), Florida Medical Detachment;

b.  a memorandum, dated 27 April 2005, from a lieutenant colonel at the Recruiting and Retention Office, Florida ARNG;

c.  results of the 14-15 November 2002 Selection Board for the Reserve of the Army without Concurrent Call to Active Duty (ARNG/Medical Service Corps), 

d.  orders, dated 19 December 2002, which discharged the applicant from the ARNG in the rank of sergeant, and appointed her a 2LT in the Medical Service Corps of the ARNG effective 12 December 2002;

e.  an NGB Form 337 (Oaths of Office) showing that she executed her oaths of office for temporary Federal recognition and as a National Guard officer on 12 December 2002;

f.  a request for professional evaluation for specialty 72D (Environmental Science) eligibility, dated 16 January 2003 and 25 January 2003;

g.  an NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 21 March 2003;

h.  an NGB Form 337 showing that she executed her oaths of office for temporary Federal recognition and as a National Guard officer a second time on 14 January 2004;

i.  National Guard Federal Recognition Special Orders Number 44 AR, dated 26 February 2004; and

j.  National Guard Special Orders Number 45 AR, dated 27 February 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 18 November 2002, the results of the 14-15 November 2002 Selection Board for the Reserve of the Army without Concurrent Call to Active Duty (ARNG/Medical Service Corps) were released.  The applicant was among those selected by this board.

2.  The applicant was honorably discharged from her enlisted status in the ARNG effective 11 December 2002, and was appointed a 2LT in the ARNG effective 
12 December 2002.  She also executed her oaths of office for temporary Federal recognition and as a National Guard officer on 12 December 2002.

3.  On 25 January 2003, the applicant was determined qualified for her area of concentration (AOC) 72D.

4.  In her application, Staff Sergeant (SSG) R____, an Army Medical Department (AMEDD) technician, essentially stated that the applicant was selected by the United States Army Recruiting Command effective 20 November 2002.  
SSG R____  also stated, in effect, that the applicant was sworn in as a commissioned officer at a local board on 12 December 2002, and that her permanent Federal recognition packet was sent to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) in accordance with the AMEDD Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).  SSG R____ continued by stating that according to e-mail traffic and notes in the AMEDD files for the applicant, the NGB never received the applicant’s initial permanent Federal recognition packet.  SSG R____ also stated that another permanent Federal recognition packet was sent forward at a later date, but because the required predetermination was not completed for the applicant to be placed into a 72D position, the second permanent Federal recognition packet was rejected by the NGB.  SSG R____ stated that she deployed to Kuwait in early January 2003, but that the predetermination was subsequently completed on the applicant, and believed that the applicant’s permanent Federal recognition was in order.  SSG R____ also stated, in effect, that while she was deployed, no permanent Federal recognition orders came down through channels, but that no one followed up on the applicant’s orders because she was in Kuwait and the other AMEDD technician moved out of state.  SSG R____ also stated that this apparent oversight was not discovered until the applicant’s permanent Federal recognition packet was returned from NGB without action in November 2003.  SSG R____ then essentially stated that, with new personnel in place, the applicant was instructed to execute new oaths of office, and her permanent Federal recognition packet was resubmitted to the NGB again.  SSG R____ also essentially stated that the error with the applicant’s 2LT date of rank was not discovered until her promotion packet for first lieutenant (1LT) with an effective date of 12 December 2004 was rejected, as her 2LT was 14 January 2004 instead of 12 December 2002.  

5.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Personnel Division, NGB.  That office essentially recommended approval of the applicant’s request to adjust her initial appointment and date of rank from 
14 January 2004 to 12 December 2002, to promote her to 1LT with an effective date of 12 December 2004, and to pay her back pay and allowances for these adjustments.  

6.  A copy of this advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for her information and possible comment.  The applicant concurred with the advisory opinion on 18 August 2006.

7.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), chapter 2 provides, in pertinent part, that the effective date of Federal recognition for original appointment is the date on which the commissioned officer executes the Oaths of Office in the State.  Also, paragraph 2-3a states that temporary recognition upon appointment establishes the authorized grade to be used by all officers in their federally recognized status.  Paragraph 2-13 of this same regulation states that temporary Federal recognition may be extended to an officer who has been appointed in the ARNG of a State and found to be qualified by a Federal recognition board pending final determination of eligibility and appointed as a Reserve Commissioned officer of the Army, if not sooner withdrawn or replaced by the granting of permanent Federal recognition.  

8.  Paragraph 10-15b of NGR 600-100 also provides, in pertinent part, that temporary Federal recognition may be granted by a Federal recognition board to those eligible when the board finds that the member has successfully passed the examination prescribed herein, has subscribed to the Oaths of Office, and has been appointed by a State order for assignment to a position vacancy in a Federally recognized unit of the ARNG.  The Federal recognition board will forward the NGB Form 89 and allied documents to the Adjutant General (TAG).  When the member is favorably recommended, TAG will endorse the packet to the NGB.  If the member meets the qualification and requirements for Federal recognition, the Chief, NGB extends permanent Federal recognition to the member in the grade and branch in which the member is qualified.

9.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides, in pertinent part, that the normal time in service requirement for promotion of an ARNG or United States Army Reserve from 2LT to 1LT is 2 years.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her date of rank for 2LT should be changed from 14 January 2004 to 12 December 2002, and that she should be promoted to 1LT with a date of rank of 12 December 2004, with back pay and allowances.

2.  It is clear that administrative oversight through no fault of the applicant was the cause for the errors in the applicant’s Federal recognition process.  The applicant was selected by the proper authority for commissioning, and was duly administered her oaths of office on 12 December 2002.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, she is entitled to correction of her military records to show that she was appointed a 2LT in the ARNG on 12 December 2002, with a 2LT date of rank of 12 December 2002.  As a result, she is also entitled to her due course promotion from 2LT to 1LT, with an effective date and date of rank of 12 December 2004.

BOARD VOTE:

___MT __  __JH ___  ___DL___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

a.  adjusting her initial appointment date as a 2LT in the ARNG to 
12 December 2002;

	b.  promoting her from 2LT to 1LT with an effective date and date of rank of 12 December 2004; and

	c.  paying her all back pay and allowances due to her as a result of these actions.




______ Marla Troup________
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060007518
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070221
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES         1.  
102.0100.0000
2.
131.0500.0000
3.
131.0000.0000
4.

5.

6.