RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 April 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013657
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. Dean L. Turnbull
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. William D. Powers
Chairperson
Mr. William F. Crain
Member
Mr. Dale E. DeBruler
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 correction to her promotion effective date to major from 2 August 2001 to 8 May 2001.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that she was selected for promotion to major as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve while serving as an Internal Review Officer, a major's position. She states that she was assigned to a valid position at the 85th Training Support Division. She states that she did not receive her promotion until 2 August 2001. She further states that her other dates of promotion were in sync with her date of commission. Also, she has served her country and has held the position, so she should not be penalized for three months.
3. The applicant provides three copies of her Officer Evaluation Report (OER), a copy of her "My Records" assignment data, and a copy of her marriage certificate.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicants military records show that she was appointed in the Reserve as a second lieutenant effective 8 May 1987.
2. She was promoted to captain effective 25 May 1994 and to major effective
2 August 2001.
3. She is currently on active duty and assigned to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria with duty at the Defense Finance and Accounting Center, Indianapolis, Indiana.
4. On 27 June 2001, the major promotion board was approved and was released on 26 July 2001.
5. In a conversation between a staff member of the Board and a member from the Special Selection Promotion Board, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC) St. Louis, Missouri, it was stated that the applicant was notified that she was not in compliance with the Army weight standards and she was not in a higher grade position by the promotion board release date of 26 July 2001.
6. A copy of this conversation was sent to the applicant for her response. On
19 April 2007, the applicant responded with an email in which she states "At the time when I should have been promoted I was completely eligible. Based on the information obtained in the telephone conversation from the Special Selection Promotion Branch the release [date] was 26 July 2001. I was promoted on
2 August 2001. I find it confusing as to why I was not eligible on the original date of my commission 8 May 1997. The difference between 26 July 2001 and
2 August 2001 is only 8 days." "I really appreciate it! I completed my ILE Phase 3 last June and was hoping to make the promotion list this September with my year group. I have served consecutively 24 years and enjoy helping soldiers!"
7. OERs that cover rating periods from 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002 and from 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001 shows the applicant's principal duty title was Auditor. The third OER that covers a rating period from 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000 shows the applicants principal duty title was Transportation Officer.
8. The "My Record" assignment data provides no indication that the position the applicant was serving in was designated as a higher graded position.
9. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), prescribed the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers. The regulation provides that an officer who has been recommended for promotion to the next higher grade must meet the requirements before being promoted in the Reserve Component. The officer must be in the zone of consideration, be medically qualified, have undergone a favorable security screening, meet standards of the Army Body Composition Program of Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), and be a satisfactory participant.
10. This regulation further specifies that officers selected for promotion will have a promotion effective date and date of rank no earlier than the approval date of the board, or the date the officer is assigned to the higher graded position.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to major by the 2001 Special Selection Promotion Board; however, according to a member of the Special Selection Promotion Board from USAHRC, the applicant was not in a higher grade position at the time of her selection and she did not meet the standards of the Army Body Weight Control Program as established by Army Regulation 600-9.
2. The evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficient to render a change in her effective date of promotion. The promotion list was approved on 27 June 2001 and was released on 26 July 2001.
3. Officers selected for promotion will have a promotion effective date and date of rank no earlier than the approval date of the board, or the date the officer is assigned to the higher graded position. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of her records to show 8 May 2001. The applicant's effective date of promotion as recorded in the memorandum for promotion is correct.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___ded__ ___wdp__ ___wfc___ 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.
__________William D. Powers_______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060013657
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070426
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017802C070206
The advisory opinion went on to state that, if the applicant had been selected for promotion by the 1999 selection board based on 4 years TIG, she would have been promoted with a DOR of 18 April 2000, the approval date of the 1999 board. The applicant was one of those officers. Instead of being promoted to CPT on her normal PED of 18 January 2001 due to selection by the 2000 promotion board, a ROPMA DOR adjustment project determined that she would have been considered by the 1999 promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008346
Title 10, U. S. Code, section 12646(a) states that, if on the date prescribed for the discharge of transfer from an active status of a reserve commissioned officer he is entitled to be credited with at least 18, but less than 19, years of service, he may not be discharged or transferred from an active status without his consent before the earlier of the date on which he is entitled to be credited with 20 years of qualifying service or the third anniversary of the date on which he would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080762C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction to her date of rank for major to 25 October 1997. Orders dated 28 January 1998, show she was transferred to the IRR to accept promotion to major effective 28 January 1998. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001152
d. State of Georgia, Military Division, Promotion Orders 198-020, dated 17 July 2002, promoting the applicant to the grade of LTC effective 19 July 2002. e. NGB Memorandum, dated 19 July 2002, promoting the applicant as a Reserve commissioned officer, to LTC with a date of rank of 30 March 2001 and an effective of 19 July 2002. f. NGB Special Orders Number 196 AR, dated 19 July 2002, extending the applicants Federal Recognition for promotion to LTC effective 19 July 2002 and with a date of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003737C070206
Counsel states, regarding the applicant's OER for the period ending 17 April 2003, her SR purports to be Doctor K___. Counsel provides the applicant's OER for the period ending 12 April 1996 with her SR's referral letter and her acknowledgement of receipt; her Officer Record Brief; OERs for the periods ending 23 June 1992, 23 June 1993, 31 May 1994, 9 November 1994, and 14 September 1995; her 3 June 1997 appeal of the 12 April 1996 OER with supporting statements; U. S. Army Human Resource...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057834C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In item Vc of that form, her rater did state, “PROMOTE NOW and select for Battalion Command with follow-on assignments at DA level Staff.” The applicant’s senior rater stated that she was best qualified, that she “should be promoted to LTC now and given the opportunity to command at battalion level.” Her potential compared with officers senior rated in the same grade, item...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069213C070402
The OSRB determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the contention that the height and weight data and related comments on the OER were incorrect concerning the applicant exceeding the Army weight standards. While the company commander stated that the applicant was not enrolled in the weight control program until 22 June 1998, and that he believed that the applicant's height and weight were recorded incorrectly on the OER, he did not state what the correct height and weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103201C070208
21 Under Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation), three of the raters placed the applicant in the first block (Outstanding Performance, Must Promote), except for the contested OER, with positive comments on specific aspects of the applicant's performance except for the contested OER. If the rated officer's potential is below the majority of officers in the senior rater's population for that grade and the senior rater believes the rated officer should be retained for further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009225C070206
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion. The Officer Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 noted that the EO language in the FY02 LTC Army promotion selection board was not ruled unconstitutional. Prior to 2000, selection boards were required to conduct a review of files for the effects of past discrimination in any case in which the selection rate for a minority or gender group was less than the selection rate for all officers in the promotions zone...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080171C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In a three page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), that the OER for the period 13 July 1996 to 5 May 1997 [hereafter referred to as the contested OER], is substantively inaccurate and an unjust evaluation of his performance and potential. The Board determined that there is no evidence and the applicant has failed to provide evidence to support his contention that he received "diminished" ratings based on the Report of Survey. The...