RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 May 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060014755
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
Ms. Wanda L. Waller
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. William Crain
Chairperson
Mr. Donald Lewy
Member
Mr. Roland Venable
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) for promotion to first lieutenant be adjusted.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that her DOR is incorrect and that the delay and error were due to her units neglect to submit the necessary information for promotion.
3. The applicant provides a copy of her appointment letter; memoranda, dated 10 March 2001 and 10 January 2003; and a promotion letter, dated 11 April 2003.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Medical Service Corps, on 10 December 2000. She took an oath of office on 10 December 2000 and she completed the Officer Basic Course on
23 May 2002.
2. On 10 January 2003, the applicant was notified that she was not in a promotable status because she did not have a DA Form 71 (Oath of Office) and a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) verifying completion of the Officer Basic Course on file, and she did not possess a valid security clearance.
3. The applicant was promoted to first lieutenant with a DOR of 25 February 2003.
4. In support of her claim, the applicant provided a memorandum, dated
10 March 2001, from the Chief, Reserve Appointments Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command at St. Louis, Missouri which states that the applicants security clearance would be initiated by the unit.
5. In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri. The opinion states that based on two years time in grade the applicants promotion eligibility date (PED) to first lieutenant was 9 December 2002. She did not possess a valid security clearance at that time; therefore, she was not eligible for promotion. The opinion states that she was granted a clearance on 26 March 2003 and promoted to first lieutenant with a DOR of 25 February 2003. Since she did not meet all promotion requirements on her PED she is not eligible for an earlier DOR. That office recommended that the applicants request be disapproved.
6. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal. She did not respond within the given time frame.
7. Army Regulation 135-101, prescribes the policies, procedures and eligibility criteria for appointment of commissioned officers in the Reserve, in the six branches of the Army Medical Department. Paragraph 1-5(3)d specifies that an applicant must have been the subject of a National Agency Check (NAC) or investigation. The appointment authority will initiate the NAC and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Name Check for appointees without concurrent call to active duty, if not previously accomplished. If, as a result of completion of the post commissioning investigative process, an individual is unacceptable for appointment as a commissioned officer, the officer will be discharged.
8. Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-11a (3-5), specifies that the officer must be medically qualified, have undergone a favorable security screening, and meet standards of the Army Body Composition Program. Paragraph 4-13 specifies that promotion authorities will ensure that a favorable security screening is completed before announcing a promotion. The military personnel records jacket will be screened to ensure that derogatory or unfavorable suitability information is not contained therein for promotion purposes. If the results of this screening are favorable, final promotion action may proceed.
9. On 24 May 2007, the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, U.S. Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis verified that he saw no evidence of a flag that would suspend any favorable personnel action in the applicants file, that nothing is stated in the Soldier Management System, and that he did not see anything in the Personnel Electronic Records Management System [that may have precluded a favorable security screening].
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is reasonable to presume that a favorable NAC was completed on the applicant or else she would not have been appointed or retained.
2. The applicant was erroneously informed on 10 January 2003 that she was not in a promotable status because she did not possess a valid security clearance. The regulation requires only a favorable security screening. Per the email from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, U.S. Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis, Missouri, it appears there is nothing in her records that would have prevented her promotion to first lieutenant on 9 December 2002. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants military records to show her effective date of promotion to first lieutenant in the USAR is 9 December 2002 with a DOR of 9 December 2002.
BOARD VOTE:
WC_____ _DL____ __RV___ 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 to show she was promoted to first lieutenant in the USAR on 9 December 2002 with a DOR of 9 December 2002.
___William Crain______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060014755
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20070531
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
112.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010971
The evidence of record in this case appears to show the applicant was not promoted on his PED because he did not possess a valid security clearance; however, it provides no information regarding why a security screening of his record was not completed at the time, or why his security clearance packet was not properly processed. The evidence of record also shows that he was promoted to CPT on 29 August 2006, 3 years, 6 months, and 3 days after he was promoted to 1LT on 4 February 2003. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005443C070205
He advised the applicant that his date of rank would be 1 February 2005, unless he could submit proof that he had a valid security clearance before that date. The policy states a second lieutenant will be promoted to first lieutenant with a date of rank of 1 February 2005, without a current physical, security clearance, and APFT. The evidence shows that promotion authorities verified that the applicant had failed the APFT and did not have a valid security clearance at the time he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004549C070206
In a memorandum, dated 21 February 2003, the Chief, Military Personnel Actions Branch, HRC, advised the 81st RSC, and the applicant, that she was not in a promotable status due to the following disqualifications found in the database: she did not have a current qualifying Physical Examination (less than 5 years old), she did not possess a valid security clearance, and she was not assigned to a valid position. A Promotion Memorandum, dated 10 February 2005, was issued to the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016783 C070206
William F. Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests correction to his date of rank for first lieutenant (1LT) to 12 September 2003. In an advisory opinion, dated 18 January 2006, the Chief, Promotions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command (HRC) – St. Louis, Missouri, stated that they recommended disapproval on the applicant's request to adjust his DOR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002120C070206
In an advisory opinion, dated 13 July 2005, the Chief, Promotions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) – St. Louis, Missouri, stated that based on the applicant's corrected date of rank for first lieutenant of 23 February 2000, her promotion eligibility date (PED) for captain was 22 February 2005. No captain AMEDD selection board prior to the 2004 board considered first lieutenants for promotion to captain with a date of rank later than 30...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015981
Paragraph 4-11c, states in pertinent part that an officers promotion will be delayed when under suspension of favorable personnel actions; when documented as overweight as defined in Army Regulation 600-9 has failed the APFT most recently administered. By regulation, before being promoted a RC officer must be medically qualified; must have undergone a favorable security screening; and must meet weight and APFT standards. The evidence further confirms the applicant did not meet all the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008486C070208
The applicant requests her effective date of rank (DOR) for promotion to major (O-4) be adjusted to 25 June 2003. In the Advisory Opinion, the DCS stated all other criteria appear to have been met on the board approval date and the United States Army Reserve Command, St. Louis, as the issuing authority for her promotion memorandum, must make any corrections to her DOR. This section further provides the officer shall, upon promotion to the higher grade, have the same date of rank, the same...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002984C070206
The applicant requests adjustment to her date of rank for first lieutenant from 13 June 2003 to 10 February 2002. A Promotion Memorandum, dated 14 July 2004, was issued to the applicant indicating her promotion effective date and date of rank for first lieutenant was 13 June 2003. In an advisory opinion, dated 16 May 2005, the Chief, Promotions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, AHRC – St. Louis, stated that the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant on 31 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013460
A USAHRC-STL memorandum, dated 13 April 2005, shows that the applicant was selected for promotion to 1LT by an Administrative Promotion Board that convened on 31 March 2005. USAHRC-STL Orders B-05-501580, dated 9 May 2005, show that the applicant was promoted to 1LT effective 18 April 2005, with a date of rank of 18 April 2005. Based on her date of rank of 18 April 2005 and completion of 5 years time in the lower grade, the applicant's promotion eligibility date (PED) for CPT is 17 April 2010.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005929C070205
In an advisory opinion, dated 13 June 2006, the Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command (HRC) – St. Louis, Missouri, stated that an officer assigned to a unit must be fully qualified to be promoted and his date of rank is established as the date he met all requirements. He was selected for promotion to captain by the 2000 AMEDD RCSB; however, he could not be promoted because all promotion qualifications were not met, i.e.,...