RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  21 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005695 


	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:


Mr. Conrad V. Meyer

Chairperson

Mr. Dale E. DeBruler

Member

Ms. Ernestine R. Moya

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, correction of his military records to show that he was promoted to major, pay grade O4, with a date of rank and effective date of 1 July 2006.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the effective date for his promotion to major should be changed to 1 July 2006.  He contacted the Adjutant General for the State of Oregon and was told that all promotions were done in accordance with the regulatory guidelines and that he can be assured that the State of Oregon is not going to change his effective date of promotion.  The applicant contends that he attempted to get assigned into a major's position prior to the publication of the promotion board results.  However, he was told that only the State of Oregon Adjutant General can reassign people.  He identified a vacant position and put in for a branch transfer to qualify for the vacancy, but still was not assigned to the position.  He was deployed overseas at the end of February 2006.  At the time of his application he was assigned in Afghanistan.  He further contends that others with less time than him, who are not even in the "zone", have been promoted to major.  He feels that it is an injustice for him not to have his effective date of promotion backdated to 1 July 2006.

3.  The applicant provides copies of correspondence and electronic mail between himself and the Oregon Army National Guard, promotion orders, assignment orders, Proceedings of the Federal Recognition Examining Board, Designation of Area of Concentration, training documents, and promotion policy memoranda. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.   At the time of his request, the applicant was serving on active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. 

2.  On 29 June 2000, the applicant was promoted to captain.  He completed the Ordnance Maintenance Officer Advance Course on 1 November 2002.  He also completed half of the Combined Arms Service Staff School on 5 July 2003.

3.  On 26 October 2005, the applicant's designated area of concentration was changed to 91A, Ordnance, General.  On 10 January 2006, the Federal Recognition Examining Board approved the applicant's transfer to the Ordnance Branch.  Special orders were subsequently published effective 19 January 2006.


4.  On 30 June 2006, the United States Army Human Resources Command sent a Memorandum for Army National Guard Personnel Center, promoting the applicant as a Reserve commissioned officer not on active duty to the rank of major, effective 28 June 2007. 

5.  Orders 023-036, Joint Force Headquarters, Oregon National Guard, dated 
23 January 2007, promoted the applicant to major, pay grade O4, with an effective date and date of rank of 23 January 2007.

6.  Special Orders Number 32AR, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, dated 12 February 2007, announced the extension of Federal recognition in the Army National Guard to the applicant, as a major, effective 12 February 2007.

7.  On 11 June 2007, the Chief of Personnel, Joint Force Headquarters, Oregon National Guard, wrote in a memorandum that the promotion of all officers within the Oregon Army National Guard to the rank of major or higher required approval of The State Adjutant General.  The 2006 Major Army Promotion List Board results were released on 29 June 2006.  Oregon had 14 of its 15 officers selected for promotion.  These officers, along with other senior ranking officers, were reviewed by the Oregon Senior Leadership Council for possible promotion and/or selection for Senior Service Schools. The list of recommendation for promotion was provided to The State Adjutant General.  The State Adjutant General then set a priority of promotion based on input provided by the council and personal knowledge of individual officers.  Since the release and approval of the Major Army Promotion List Board, and after The State Adjutant General's approval, ten of the Department of the Army Select officers have been promoted. Four officers have yet to be promoted due to a lack of valid position vacancies.  The applicant was not high on the promotion sequence as directed and approved by The State Adjutant General which is why he was not selected when earlier positions became available.  

8.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion, dated 14 June 2007, was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia.  The opinion related that the promotion of all officers within the Oregon Army National Guard to the rank of major or higher required the approval of the Oregon State Adjutant General, due to control grades within the State.  In accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-100, chapter 8, the promotion authority for all Army National Guard officers is The State Adjutant General.  The State Adjutant General is under no obligation to promote an officer. 

9.  On 28 June 2007, a copy of the advisory opinion was mailed to the applicant for his information and opportunity to rebut.  As of 15 August 2007, no response has been received.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.   The evidence clearly shows that The State Adjutant General is solely responsible for setting promotion priorities and making position assignments.

2.   The applicant was assigned to a valid position and subsequently promoted to major effective 23 January 2007.

3.  While the applicant's desire to be promoted effective 1 July 2006 is understandable, he has not provided any evidence showing that what was done was in error or unjust.     

4.  In view of the above, the applicants request should not be granted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_CVM___  _DED___  __ERM __  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.




__      Conrad V. Meyer ____
          CHAIRPERSON
INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070005695
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
 20070821
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
Deny
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.