IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 3 February 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015404
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) be backdated to 16 January 2008.
2. The applicant states that someone from the Promotion Vacancy Board (PVB) removed his promotion packet from consideration because he was being considered by a mandatory promotion board as a below the zone (BZ) officer. This removal was an error since only those officers who are being considered by a mandatory promotion board while in the zone of consideration are prohibited from being considered by a PVB.
3. The applicant provides e-mail correspondence between him and the Human Resources Command, St. Louis (HRC-STL) which confirm that he was erroneously deleted from the PVB which convened on 27 September 2007. The HRC-STL stated that they had discovered that BZ officers being considered by a mandatory promotion board can still be considered by a PVB. The applicant also submits a memorandum dated 23 February 2007, Subject: Application Instructions for the October 2007 Position Vacancy Board (PVB) for Troop Program Unit (TPU) Positions; and a memorandum transmitting the results of the March 2008 PVB.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military records show that he was commissioned as a second lieutenant, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 6 May 1988 with prior enlisted service.
2. On 21 August 2002, the applicant was promoted to major.
3. Effective 24 July 2008, the applicant was promoted to LTC based upon his selection by a PVB.
4. Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 213, USAR troop program unit position vacancy selection boards, states that promotion to fill authorized troop program unit (TPU) position vacancies may be filled through promotion of the best qualified, geographically available officers to the grades CW3, CW4, and CPT through COL. The USAR TPU position vacancy boards will normally be held twice a year. Section III, Promotion Reconsideration Boards, paragraph 319, General, states in pertinent part that Special selection boards, convened under the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) on and after 1 October 1996, will reconsider commissioned officers, (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were wrongly not considered and reconsider commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were considered but not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened on or after 1 October 1996. These boards do not reconsider officers who were not considered or not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened before 1 October 1996.
5. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC-STL. The HRC-STL stated that the applicant was erroneously removed from consideration by the September 2007 PVB because he was being considered by a mandatory board as a BZ officer. The HRC-STL recommends granting the applicant's request. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and concurred with the HRC-STL's recommendation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The available evidence shows the applicant was erroneously not considered by a PVB for promotion to LTC.
2. While this error is unfortunate, there are no provisions in Army Regulation 135-155 to reconsider an officer for promotion when he was erroneously not considered by a PVB. As such, to grant the applicant's request would be giving him a benefit not afforded to others.
3. While this may appear unfair at first glance, it must be remembered that a PVB is designed to fill a unit vacancy. If an officer is erroneously not considered by a PVB, the position for which he is applying is filled by another officer. As such, the position no longer exists.
4. In addition, there is no method of determining whether an officer who is erroneously not considered by a PVB would have been selected by that selection board.
5. The HRC-STL advisory opinion has been carefully considered. While the HRC-STL recommends granting the applicant's request, it does not provide any authority for adjusting the applicant's DOR.
6. The applicant was considered for and selected by the next PVB. While this does not afford the applicant the date of rank and effective date of promotion he desires, he was at least promoted.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___X____ ___X____ ___X___ 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.
_______ _X _______ ___
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080015404
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080015404
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014921
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 March 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080014921 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he became eligible for LTC on 17 July 2007 when he had 4-years time in grade (TIG) in accordance with Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers). While the applicant states that he was never notified of the PVB suspense, he has not provided any evidence to substantiate that contention.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012708
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090012708 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that his promotion packet was erroneously removed from consideration by a position vacancy board (PVB). Although the regulation does not provide for promotion consideration by an SSB for erroneous non-consideration by a PVB, as matter of equity his DOR should be corrected to show 16 January 2008, the date of approval of the October 2007 PVB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007310C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion reconsideration by a Position Vacancy Board (PVB). In addition, the Reserve Officer Management Office states that the command did not request any 27A positions to be filled by the PVB in September 2004 or March 2005. The applications for both the September 2004 PVB and March 2005 PVB were stopped due to failures within the administrative process of the 351st CA Command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010097
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion reconsideration to captain (CPT) by a Position Vacancy Board (PVB). In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of Promotion, Reserve Components, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri, dated 10 August 2006, indicating that the applicant was considered on the 2006 Position Vacancy Board which convened on 28 March 2006. Promotion to fill authorized troop program unit (TPU) position...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011859
The applicant requests promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) based on the results of a September 2013 LTC USAR promotion vacancy board (PVB) or a special selection board (SSB) based on the January 2014 LTC Department of the Army (DA) Mandatory Promotion Selection Board as a "below the zone look." At the same time her below the zone mandatory LTC board was meeting, HRC advised that she was not considered because her records showed she was in a "selected with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000208
The applicant requests, in effect, to have the packet he submitted for promotion be considered by the Reserve Position Vacancy Board (PVB) in March 2009 and to extend his mandatory retirement date. The applicant's record is void of any documentation to show that the Secretary of the Army (SA) determined the applicant to be the only qualified officer available to the fill a position vacancy within his unit. Army Regulation 135-155 further states that officers failed of selection by a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017538
The applicant requests his promotion to major (MAJ)/O-4 be backdated to compensate for requested inclusion in the September 2009 Position Vacancy Board (PVB) for Troop Program Unit (TPU) positions. The applicant provides copies of email he: * sent to his detachment commander, subject: USAR TPU Position Vacancy Promotion, dated 22 June 2009 * sent to the unit administrator requesting information regarding vacancy promotions, dated 23 June 2009 * sent to his detachment commander subject: Due...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008945
He states that when he received his commission in the Reserve, JAG officers received their promotions from 1LT to CPT through a Promotion Vacancy Board (PVB). His peers were promoted by the PVB and the Army has since fixed the flaw and now all Reserve direct-commission JAG officers are promoted to CPT as soon as they have sufficient time in grade (TIG) and are educationally qualified, which is normally 1 year after commissioning, which for him would have been 13 March 2004. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016879
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 APRIL 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080016879 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 135-155 also specifies that the unit commander will initiate position vacancy promotion procedures and forward a memorandum listing all unit officers eligible for promotion consideration. Nevertheless, the applicant has not sufficiently shown that he would have been selected for the position vacancy absent the loss of his promotion packet and,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001055C070205
While in the GSU, he applied for a promotion to captain via the January 2004 Position Vacancy Board (PVB) for a vacant captain Administrative Law Officer position. Prior to the processing of his promotion, it was determined that when the applicant's promotion packet was submitted for consideration, a position vacancy did not exist for the applicant to fill in order for him to be promoted. Since there is no authorization for promotion to the next higher grade based on filling a position...