RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	   


	BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009101 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth L. Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.

Member

Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins

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 his date of rank (DOR) for lieutenant colonel (LTC) be adjusted.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was not aware he could request a waiver of his military education requirement.  Otherwise, he would have requested a waiver much earlier.  In 2001, his career took a significant change.  He was mobilized several times and several of the necessary military educational programs were not offered to Reserve officers at the time he needed them.  He believes that he is entitled to the same consideration as a fellow officer who, with less active service, was granted a waiver and promoted. 

3.  The applicant provides copies of a 21 October 1999 approval of award of an Area of Concentration (AOC) conversion, a 22 May 2006 promotion order, and promotion orders for Major S____.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 27 March 1981. 

2.  He was selected for promotion to major by the 1993 Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB), and was promoted with an effective date and date of rank of 14 April 1994.

3.  On 8 March 2001 the applicant was notified that he had been nonselected for promotion due to noncompletion of the required educational requirement.

4.  He served on active duty from 11 October 2001 through 8 October 2002.

5.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant was again notified he had been nonselected for promotion.

6.  On 14 March 2003 he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom.  He served on active duty from 16 March 2003 through 14 June 2003 and returned to his Reserve Troop Program Unit (TPU).

7.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant was notified a third time he had been nonselected for promotion.

8.  He again served on active duty from 1 April 2004 through 17 August 2004 with return to his TPU upon release from active duty.

9.  The applicant received notification that he was nonselected for promotion by the 2004 RCSB.

10.  The applicant's file went before the 2005 RCSB with a waiver of education. He was considered for and recommended for promotion by that board.  However, his promotion was suspended until he completed of the education requirement. 

11.  The applicant enrolled in and successfully completed the Information Operations NGB-AIS-IO (101) course on 30 September 2005.

12.  A 28 June 2006 DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) shows the applicant completed the non-resident Command And General Staff Officer Course (1-250-ILE).

13.  Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis Orders B-05-603914, dated 22 May 2006, promoted the applicant to LTC with an effective date and date of rank of 9 May 2006.

14.  On 29 November 2006 the promotion orders were amended and the applicant is now shown to have an effective date and date of rank for LTC of 30 December 2005.

15.  The applicant compares his case to Major S____, who was recommended for promotion to major by the 1996 RCSB.  However, Major S____ was not promoted at that time because his physical examination had expired.  

16.  The Office of Promotions, Reserve Components determined that Major S____ met all of the requirements for promotion as of 8 May 2002.  He was issued orders promoting him to major effective 8 May 2002 with a date of rank of 30 April 1996.

17.  With a 29 April 1996 promotion eligibility date, Major S____ was immediately eligible for consideration for and was selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC). 

18.  In the development of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components.  Both cases were reviewed and summarized.  It was noted that the applicant had not made any effort to complete the required educational course until 2004 or 2005 and in fact had not completed the minimum requirement until 2006.  It was opined that, since the applicant was not promoted on time due to his own failure to take the required actions, the applicant's request should be denied.

19.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant.  There is no indication that the applicant replied to the opinion.

20.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the Army National Guard of the United States and of commissioned and warrant officers of the U.S. Army Reserve.  To qualify for selection, commissioned officers must complete the required time in grade (TIG) and the military educational requirements specific to their next higher grade.  An Officer will be placed before a mandatory promotion board for consideration for major prior to completion seven years TIG.  They are required to have completed the appropriate branch Advanced Officer Course.

21.  Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-1 lists the time in grade requirement for promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel (LTC) as 7 years.

22.  Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2 lists the military educational requirements for commissioned officers being considered for promotion from major to lieutenant colonel (LTC) as completion of at least fifty percent of the Command and General Staff Officers Course (CGSOC) or its equivalent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is the responsibility of every officer to ensure that their records are properly maintained and that they meet all requirements for promotion consideration in a timely manner. 

2.  The circumstances for the applicant’s delayed promotion and the circumstances of the referenced officer are radically different.  The referenced officer was recommended for promotion but not promoted due to not having a valid physical.  The applicant was not promoted due to his own failure to complete the educational requirements. 

3.  It appears the applicant did not commence the required educational requirement prior to the point he was first considered for promotion in 2000 or 
7 years after his promotion to major; there is no indication that he attempted to meet the educational requirement until after he had already been passed-over four times.  

4.  The applicant's contentions do not mitigate the fact that it took him much longer to complete the educational requirements as other officers under the same circumstances.  Further, the periods of active duty he cites all occurred after he was first nonselected.

5.  The applicant has established no basis for adjusting his promotion date to LTC.  Records indicate the applicant was promoted to LTC at the earliest point that he was fully qualified for promotion.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KLW__  __PHM __  __KSJ __  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.





_    _Kenneth L. Wright____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060009101
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
2007/05/10 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.