RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:    


	BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003346 


	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

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Scott W. Faught

Member

Mr. Roland S. 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 that her date of rank to colonel, pay grade O-6 be adjusted from 18 February 2005 to 1 October 2004.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was selected to serve in an O-6 position as the Virginia National Guard G1 [Personnel Officer] and was nominated for a unit vacancy promotion.  Her date of rank to lieutenant colonel was 1 December 2000.  She was in the zone of consideration for the Department of the Army (DA) Mandatory Board convening in July 2004.  Her promotion nomination was endorsed by her rater, senior rater and The [State] Adjutant General.  She was assigned to an O-6 position and had met all of the requirements for promotion to colonel.  All of her Officer Evaluation Reports (OER’s) were “Above Center of Mass” ratings.  She had completed a successful battalion command.  Her records were sent before a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) on 18 March 2004 to determine her qualifications for promotion to colonel. The board consisted of three white males.  She was subsequently informed that the board had determined that she was “not fully qualified professionally for promotion to colonel.”  Her rater then petitioned the State Adjutant General for reconsideration.  In April 2004, the FRB reconsidered her for promotion and found her to be fully qualified.  She was also considered and found fully qualified for promotion by the DA Mandatory Board that convened in July 2004.  The applicant further states that because of her non-selection by the March 2004 FRB, she had to suffer the embarrassment of having to make a personal appearance in front of a subsequent board and her promotion to colonel was significantly delayed until February 2005.  The non-selection and subsequent personal appearance was very visible in her organization as she was the Deputy G1 [Personnel Officer] at the time and her employees were responsible for processing officer promotion actions.  She further contends that had her promotion been recommended by the March 2004 FRB, she would have received Federal recognition to colonel on 1 October 2004 at the latest.  Instead, she was placed on two different Presidential Nomination Lists; one from the DA Mandatory Board that convened in July 2004; and one from the April 2004 FRB.  Both of these lists were significantly delayed by the prison scandal and did not receive Senate confirmation until 17 February 2005.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of her OER’s; Service School Academic Report; Memorandum: Defense Strategy Course Completion; Physical Fitness Test Scorecard; Proceedings of an FRB dated 18 March 2004; Proceedings of an FRB dated 15 April 2004; Promotion Orders 112-119, State of Virginia, dated 21 April 2004; Promotion Memorandum, National Guard Bureau, dated 
18 February 2005; Special Orders Number 46, National Guard Bureau, dated 
18 February 2005; and Memorandum of Instruction to Army National Guard FRB, approved 23 March 2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of application, the applicant was serving on active duty in the Virginia Army National Guard, in the rank of colonel, pay grade O-6.

2.  On 18 March 2004, an FRB convened to determine the applicant’s qualifications for Federal recognition in the grade of colonel, and branch of military intelligence.  The FRB consisted of three male officers in the rank of colonel.  None of the board members were branched in military intelligence.  The applicant was not required to appear in person.  The FRB found the applicant to be physically, morally and generally qualified.  However, the FRB did not find her to be professionally fully qualified, stating that she lacked sustained experience and evidence of sufficient responsibilities at her current grade to demonstrate potential for service at the next higher grade.  The FRB recommended that she not be granted Federal recognition.

3.  On 24 March 2004, the Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, Virginia Army National Guard, petitioned The [Virginia State] Adjutant General to reconsider the applicant for Federal recognition.  The petition was based upon possible omissions from the packet considered by the FRB on 18 March 2004.  On 
31 March 2004, The Adjutant General approved the petition for reconsideration.

4.  On 15 April 2004, the applicant appeared before an FRB.  This board consisted of three male officers in the rank of colonel.  None of the board members were branched in military intelligence.  It found her to be fully qualified for promotion to colonel and recommended that she be granted Federal recognition.  

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia.  It stated, in effect, that approval of the scroll list for Federal recognition normally takes from 90 to 120 days.  However, during the period in question, new policies were implemented between the National Guard Bureau and the Department of the Army requiring the scroll list to be forwarded for review to all the different offices at the Department of the Army.  It stated that the Soldier should not be penalized because of this added delay, and recommended that her request be approved.

6.  On 10 September 2007, the applicant concurred with the advisory opinion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was considered by the FRB in March 2004 and was non-selected.  In April 2004, the applicant was granted reconsideration. She appeared, in person, before the FRB and was then found to be fully qualified for Federal recognition.   

2.  There is no available evidence showing that the March FRB was in error, or was in any way less than professional in the rendering of their decision to non-select the applicant for Federal recognition.  Furthermore, the applicant's personal appearance before the board shows that the second board considered additional evidence.

3.  There is no evidence showing that the approval process for the April 2004 FRB took any longer for the applicant then it did for any other officer who was considered during the same time period.  It would be grossly unfair to grant an earlier date of rank to one and not to do so for all of the other Soldiers who were caught in the same circumstance. 

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the above, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ LDS__  ___RSV _  _SWF __  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.





__    Linda D. Simmons __
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070003346
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20071025 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
Deny
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131.0500
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.