RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  18 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013460 


	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 J. Fowler

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

Chairperson

Mr. Gerald J. Purcell

Member

Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau

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 adjustment to her date of rank for First Lieutenant (1LT) from April 2005 to July 2003.  She further requests promotion consideration to Captain (CPT).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she had prior service in the active duty Air Force and the Air National Guard until February 2000.  That same month she became a member of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a Second Lieutenant (2LT) with 1 year, 8 months, and 3 days time in grade.  At that time, she had a security clearance that was valid until October 2001.  She states that in July 2000 a promotion packet was submitted for promotion to 1LT.  In December 2000, the packet was returned, stating that a security clearance and attendance at Officer Basic Course (OBC) was required for promotion.  

3.  The applicant completed OBC in December 2001, and she resubmitted her promotion packet.  She was told in February 2002 that she would have to submit a new security clearance, which she did electronically.  She was told that due to 9/11 that it might take a while.  In May 2004, the security clearance was granted, four years after when she should have been promoted to 1LT.  She was promoted to 1LT in March 2005.   

4.  The applicant further states that she should have been promoted to 1LT as of July 2000, or at least July 2003, when her clearance was granted.  She would like to have her promotion backdated to reflect this date.  She would be eligible to make CPT as of July 2005, as this would give her 7 years in grade as a 1LT.  The applicant also states, "I believe that due to 9/11, I was put on hold for my promotion, when actually I had a security clearance and should have been promoted right after OBC.  I deserve to have my time in grade and grade updated to reflect this.  I would like to have been promoted in January 2001 as I had a secret clearance, but at least promote me as of my Army security clearance date of July 2003, and my promotion to Captain as of July 2005."

5.  The applicant provides a memorandum from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command-St. Louis (ARPERCEN) dated 25 January 2000; a memorandum from the 73rd Field Hospital, Subject: Personnel Security Clearance Verification, dated 24 October 2004; and a memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC-STL), St. Louis, dated 
13 April 2005.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant had prior service.  An ARPERCEN memorandum dated 
25 January 2000, shows that she was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army at the rank of 2LT on 16 February 2000 in the USAR.  Her appointment orders show her branch as Army Nurse Corps (ANC), and she was given constructive credit sufficient for a date of rank of 13 June 1998.

2.  A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 
14 December 2001, shows that the applicant successfully completed OBC.

3.  An ARPERCEN memorandum, dated 20 December 2002, shows that the applicant was notified of suspended promotion status.  The memorandum indicated that she was not in a promotable status.  Promotion action could not be completed due to her not having a valid security clearance.  The applicant was instructed to have verification of a valid security clearance or an approved interim clearance submitted by 20 February 2003. 

4.  A 73rd Field Hospital memorandum, dated 24 October 2004, shows that the applicant's security clearance was approved and the investigation was completed on 23 July 2003.

5.  A USAHRC-STL memorandum, dated 19 November 2004, shows that the applicant was informed she was flagged.  The memorandum indicated that she was not in a promotable status.  Promotion action could not be completed due to her having failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) most recently administered or, through her own fault (as determined by the first commander who was senior to the officer's commander) had not taken and passed an APFT within the period required by Army Regulation 350-41.  

6.  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.  The memorandum also shows that her promotion eligibility date was 12 June 2000.  The memorandum further states "To be promoted effective that date, you must remain in an active status and not be under any flagging actions."

7.  The Soldier Management System (SMS), USAHRC-STL, Transaction History, indicates in an entry dated 15 April 2005 that the applicant was selected to be promoted but was unable to be promoted due to flagging action.  The remarks section also shows that the applicant was promoted to 1LT effective 18 April 2005.  Her date of rank was the date the flag was removed.
8.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve Component officers.  The regulation specifies that officers in the grade of second lieutenant may be eligible for promotion consideration to first lieutenant prior to completion of 2 years time in grade without review of a selection board.  The officer's records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed.  

10.  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.  Promotion authorities will ensure that a favorable security screening is completed before announcing a promotion.  

11.  Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-11c (10) states that an officer’s promotion is automatically delayed when the officer is documented as overweight as defined in AR 600-9 or has failed the APFT most recently administered; or, through his or her own fault (as determined by the first commander who is senior to the officer concerned), has not taken and passed an APFT within the period required.  (Officers having a valid permanent or temporary medical profile that, as determined by appropriate medical personnel, precludes administration of the APFT, even in an authorized modified form, are deemed not to have taken the APFT through no fault of their own.)

12.  Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4–18 specifies that the date of rank and effective date after an involuntary delay in promotion regarding adjustment may only be made by the Secretary of the Army.  It also states that the Chief, Officer Promotions Reserve Components (RC) USAHRC-STL is authorized to adjust the date of rank and effective date of promotion for an officer whose promotion has been delayed for any one of five listed reasons to include failure to pass the most recent APFT or failure to take and pass the APFT within the period required by Army Regulation 350-1 because of the fault of the officer concerned, and the basis for the delay no longer exists.  When the reason for the delay is APFT failure/failure to take the APFT, the DOR and effective date will be the day following the date the officer passes the APFT.  

13.  Army Regulation 135-155 also specifies that a first lieutenant will receive mandatory promotion consideration for promotion to captain upon completion of 5 years in the lower grade.  An officer will be considered in advance of his/her maximum time in grade in order to be promoted on or before the date that he/she completes the maximum time in grade.  

14.  Army Regulation 135-155 further specifies that promotion consideration or reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to adjustment to her date of rank for 1LT.  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.

2.  The applicant contends that she should have been at least promoted to 1LT effective 23 July 2003, the date her security investigation was completed.  Her date of rank to 2LT was 13 June 1998.  At the time she had completed 2 years time in grade, on 12 June 2000, the applicant had not successfully completed OBC.  She completed OBC on 21 December 2001.  On 20 December 2002, promotion authorities verified that the applicant was not promotable for not having a valid security clearance.  On 8 July 2003, the applicant's security investigation was completed.  There is no evidence to show an interim clearance was submitted prior to her promotion.  

3.  On 19 November 2004, promotion authorities verified that the applicant was flagged for failing the most recently administered APFT or, through her own fault had not taken and passed an APFT within the period required.  On 18 April 2005, the applicant's flag was lifted.  She was promoted to 1LT effective 18 April 2005 with a DOR of 18 April 2005.  

4.  She provides no evidence to show she met the APFT requirements from July 2003 to April 2005.  This meant that her DOR would be the same as her effective date of promotion because she was flagged prior to promotion to 1LT.

5.  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.  Therefore, she is not eligible for promotion consideration to CPT by a special selection board.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RD ___  __GP ___  __RN___  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.




____ Mr. Richard T. Dunbar __
          CHAIRPERSON