RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 May 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009921 


	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.  




Director



Analyst

      The following members, a quorum, were present:


M

Chairperson

M

Member

M

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 from 23 January 2007 to 25 October 2005. 

2.  The applicant essentially states that she was promotable to MAJ as of 
25 October 2005; however, her packet was not evaluated at that time.  She also states that on 7 March 2006, the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) Clinic Commander forwarded a recommendation for promotion to the Illinois Director of Military Personnel reiterating her qualifications.  She further states that she deployed to Balad, Iraq in April 2006, and was not promoted in the field, nor was she considered for promotion at that time.  Additionally, she states that on 
20 September 2006, 7 weeks after she returned from Iraq, she received State promotion orders; but that in her Integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) file, there is an additional copy of her State promotion orders with the effective date altered to read 23 January 2007; the date she received Federal recognition orders.

3.  The applicant provides a 7 March 2006 memorandum from the ILARNG Clinic Commander, a DA Form 5501-R (Body Fat Content Worksheet), Orders 269-38, dated 26 September 2006, which promoted her to MAJ effective 20 September 2006 but indicated that she would not be paid as a MAJ until Federal recognition was confirmed; a second copy of Orders 269-38 with an altered effective date of 23 January 2007 for promotion to MAJ; her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period 6 April 2006 through 16 August 2006; Orders 214-0005, dated 2 August 2006, which released her from active duty effective 16 August 2006; officer evaluation reports with "thru" dates of 
9 February 2005, 9 February 2006, 5 April 2006, and 17 July 2006; a memorandum, dated 16 August 2004, which appointed her a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army in the rank of captain with a DOR of 
25 October 2001; and Federal recognition orders, dated 16 August 2004 in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently a member of the ILARNG.

2.  Orders, dated 24 January 2007, essentially show that the applicant was extended Federal recognition in the rank of MAJ effective 23 January 2007.


3.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau.  That office essentially recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request to adjust her DOR to MAJ from 24 January 2007 to 25 October 2005 because she was promoted based on a position vacancy promotion, and that the Secretary of Defense approved and established the promotion effective date and DOR.   

4.  The Chief, Personnel Division also stated, in pertinent part, in accordance with the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), the effective date of promotion and DOR for an officer who is promoted under the position vacancy promotion system will be the date the Chief, National Guard Bureau extends Federal recognition, based on the approved scroll list from the Secretary of Defense.  Additionally, an officer's promotion effective date is not the date of appointment into a position or the date of the State Federal Recognition Board.  The scroll list takes approximately 90 to 120 days to be approved by the Secretary of Defense because it has to be processed through twelve offices within the Defense Department before it is approved by the Secretary of Defense.

5.  A copy of this advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 13 February 2008, and she was provided an opportunity to reply.  To date, no response has been received from the applicant.  

6.  The applicant essentially stated that she was promotable to MAJ as of 
25 October 2005; however, her packet was not evaluated at that time.  She also stated that on 7 March 2006, the ILARNG Clinic Commander forwarded a recommendation for promotion to the Illinois Director of Military Personnel reiterating her qualifications.  She further stated that she deployed to Balad, Iraq in April 2006, and was not promoted in the field, nor was she considered for promotion at that time.  Additionally, she stated that on 20 September 2006, 
7 weeks after she returned from Iraq, she received State promotion orders; but that in her iPERMS file, there is an additional copy of her State promotion orders with the effective date altered to read 23 January 2007; the date she received Federal recognition orders.

7.  National Guard Regulation 600-100 provides procedures for processing all applications for Federal Recognition.  Paragraph 2-1 states that commissioned officers of the ARNG are appointed by the States under Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution.  These appointments may be federally recognized by the Chief, NGB under such regulations as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe and under the provisions of this regulation.  Officers who are federally recognized in a particular grade and branch shall be tendered an appointment in the same grade as Reserve commissioned officers of the Army with assignment to the Army National Guard of the United States if they have not already accepted such appointment.  

8.  Paragraph 8-1 of National Guard Regulation 600-100 states that the promotion of officers in the ARNG is a function of the State.  Paragraph 8-3 of this regulation states that a commissioned officer who has been promoted by the State and extended Federal Recognition in the higher grade will be concurrently promoted to the higher grade in the Reserve of the Army with assignment to the Army National Guard of the United States.

9.  Section 14308(f) of Title 10 United States Code states that the effective date of a promotion of a Reserve commissioned officer in the Army who is extended Federal recognition in the next higher grade in the Army National Guard shall be the date in which such Federal recognition in that grade is so extended.

10.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  This regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her DOR to MAJ should be changed from 
23 January 2007 to 25 October 2005. 

2.  While it is clear that the applicant believes that her DOR to MAJ should be changed from 23 January 2007 to 25 October 2005, her effective date of promotion to MAJ is not the date of her appointment into a MAJ position.  It is also not the effective date the State Federal Recognition Board approved her promotion to MAJ.  

3.  In accordance with the ROPMA, the effective date of promotion and DOR for an officer who is promoted under the position vacancy promotion system will be the date the Chief, NGB extends Federal recognition, based on the approved scroll list from the Secretary of Defense. 

4.  The applicant was awarded permanent Federal Recognition for the purpose of promotion to the rank of MAJ with the effective date of 23 January 2007.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which shows the Chief, National Guard Bureau did not process the applicant's permanent Federal Recognition in a timely manner.

5.  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 this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting relief to the applicant in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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.




      ______________________
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20070009921



5


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET, 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508