RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 July 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010966 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Yvonne Foskey

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Kathleen A. Newman

Chairperson

Ms. Susan A. Powers

Member

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

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 (DOR) to Major (MAJ) be changed to 28 June 2005 or to the date the promotion board convened.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her delay in promotion was not voluntary and that she would like her records corrected to show her DOR as 28 June 2005, the date she was eligible for promotion.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her application:  Self-Authored Statement; Electronic Mail (E-mail) Messages; United States Total Army Personnel Command Memorandum Corrected Letter, dated 26 September 2001; United States Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Orders Number R-04-472915, dated 19 April 2004; United States Army HRC Command Memorandum, dated 28 June 2005; United States Army HRC, Orders Number R-05-683280, dated 1 May 2006; United States Army HRC, Orders Number B-06-604309, dated 22 June 2006; and United States Army HRC, Orders Number R-07-684873, dated 10 July 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows she was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 8 May 1992.  She was promoted to first lieutenant on 30 May 1995, and to captain on 21 March 1999, which established her Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) or Maximum Years In Grade (MYIG) date for major as 20 March 2006.  

2.  On 17 May 2004, the applicant entered active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status to serve in a captain company commander position with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 419th Transportation Battalion, Bartonsville, Illinois.  

3.  On 28 June 2005, the United States Army Human Resources Command, 
St. Louis, Missouri (HRC-St. Louis) published a memorandum notifying the applicant that she had been selected for promotion by the 2005 Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB), which was approved by the President on 
8 June 2005.  This notification informed the applicant that in order to be promoted she must remain in an active Reserve status and meet the promotion eligibility criteria set forth in Army Regulation 135-155.  It further stipulated that if on approval of the board, she was not assigned or attached to a duty position authorized a grade equal or higher than the grade in which she was selected (major), her promotion would be delayed until she was so assigned or attached.  

4.  On 19 June 2006, the applicant entered a valid MAJ position, and on 22 June 2006, HRC-St. Louis published a memorandum authorizing the applicant's promotion to major, effective and with a DOR of 19 June 2006, the date she assumed a valid position in the higher grade. 

5.  On 1 September 2006, in connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC, St. Louis, Chief, Special Actions, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components (RC).  This official stated, in pertinent part, that the applicant was given 19 June 2006 as her date of rank because that was the date she entered the position authorized the higher grade.  

6.  On 9 April 2007, the applicant submitted her rebuttal to the advisory opinion.  She states that she is submitting an e-mail exchange between herself and her Personnel Management Officer (PMO), dated 8 September 2005, in which she was notified that she would be required to submit a request to remain in place by the close of business on 16 September 2005, otherwise she would be subject to move.  She states that she notified her PMO that she realized she may be required to move to her permanent change of station (PCS) prior to completing her command tour, however that option was more appealing to her than having to go before the promotion board again next year as she had not yet confirmed that she would not be required to do so.  She also states that she was not offered a position by HRC, that she did not submit a DA Form 4187 requesting to delay her promotion, and in fact the position she is currently in is one that she stumbled upon with the assistance of the 63rd Regional Readiness Center and her brigade commander.  She further states that the reason that she is in this position is because her DOR to captain was changed from 2000 to 1999; also do to no fault of her own.

7.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officer and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Section III provides guidance on dates of promotion.  


8.  Paragraph 4-21d of the USAR promotion regulation contains guidance on the promotion of AGR officers.  It states that AGR officers selected by a mandatory board will be promoted provided they are assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade.  An AGR officer who is selected for promotion by a mandatory promotion board, but who is not assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade will be promoted on the date of assignment/attachment to a higher graded position or the day after release from AGR status.  The date of rank will be the date the officer attained maximum years in grade (MYIG), or the date on which assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade, whichever is earlier. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By law and regulation, the effective date of an AGR officer’s promotion to MAJ will be the date they assume a position in that higher grade.  In this case, the evidence shows the applicant was promoted, effective the date she entered a position authorized the higher grade of major, which was 19 June 2006.  The e-mail traffic submitted by the applicant did not clearly show her intent to move out of the AGR program in order to be promoted immediately.  In fact, the record is void of any evidence showing she formally requested transfer from the AGR program to the Individual Ready Reserve, which would have been required for her to be promoted immediately, or that she was placed in a major position prior to the effective date of her promotion.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support any change to the effective date of her promotion.  

2.  By law and regulation, the date of rank of an AGR officer will be the date the officer is assigned to a position authorized the higher grade or the date they reached the MYIG requirement of seven years, whichever is earlier.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to major effective and with a date of rank of 19 June 2006.  The record also confirms her PED or MYIG was 20 March 2006.  Therefore, her date of rank should have been established as 20 March 2006, in conjunction with her 19 June 2006 promotion to major and it would be appropriate to correct the record accordingly at this time. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___KAN _  ___SAP _  __EEM _  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 be corrected by showing her major date of rank as 19 March 2006.

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 her request to adjust the effective date of her promotion to major and her major date of rank to 25 June 2005, or the date the RCSB convened.  




_____Kathleen A. Newman____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060010966
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/07/10
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
N/A
DATE OF DISCHARGE
N/A
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT-PARTIAL
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.