IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 21 April 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080019635
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 her date of rank and effective date for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) be changed from 28 October 2008 to 20 August 2008.
2. The applicant states that she is a Reserve Soldier on active duty and the Reserve unit she is assigned to was unaware that the date of assignment determined the date of rank. She goes on to state that the commander signed her AHRC Form 56-R (Promotion Qualification Statement) on 28 October 2008 and that is the date her unit assigned as the date of her assignment on her promotion packet, when in fact it should have been 20 August 2008.
3. The applicant provides what she explains to be a copy of her promotion packet and copies of her orders to active duty and LTC promotion orders.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps on 21 May 1992. She continued to serve in a variety of positions and was promoted to the rank of major on 30 April 2002.
2. The applicant was serving on active duty at Fort Eustis, Virginia, when her promotion packet for promotion to the rank of LTC was submitted. She was selected for promotion to the rank of LTC by the 2008 Department of the Army Reserve Components LTC Army Medical Department Selection Board. The Board was approved on 20 August 2008.
3. The Promotion Qualification Statement submitted by the applicant's commander indicates that the applicant was assigned to an LTC position on 28 October 2008.
4. On 30 October 2008, orders were published by the United States Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis (HRC-STL), Missouri, announcing the applicant's promotion to the rank of LTC effective 28 October 2008 with a date of rank (DOR) of 28 October 2008.
5. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC-STL Special Actions Branch, Department of the Army Promotions, which opined that documentation was received by that office which verified that she was assigned to a higher graded position on 28 October 2008 and therefore she was promoted with that date as her effective date and DOR. Officials at that office further opined that unless she could provide documentation from the unit verifying that she had been assigned to a higher graded position before 28 October 2008, there was no basis to grant her request. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date, no response has been received by the staff of the Board.
6. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides, in pertinent part, that a unit officer will have a promotion date and effective date no earlier than the date the board is approved, provided he or she is assigned to a position in a higher grade. When the approval date is before assignment to the higher grade, the effective date and date of promotion will be the assignment date.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that she should have been promoted to the rank of LTC on 20 August 2008, the date the promotion board results were approved, has been noted and appears to lack merit.
2. The applicant was only entitled to be promoted to the rank of LTC on 20 August 2008 provided she was occupying an LTC position on that date. She has failed to show through the evidence submitted with her application and the evidence of record that such was the case.
3. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that she did in fact occupy a higher graded position prior to 28 October 2008, or that she was unjustly denied or unduly delayed assignment to an LTC position, there appears to be no basis to grant the applicants request.
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 this requirement.
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) AR20080019635
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080019635
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020760
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of her records as follows: * Award of 8 years and 11 months of constructive service credit (CSC) in order to establish her promotion eligibility to major (MAJ) as March 2001 * Adjustment of her date of rank (DOR) as a MAJ to an appropriate date to put her in the zone for promotion to lieutenant colonel * Correction of her education error * Informing the U.S. Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001682
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. She goes on to state that in November 2006, she inquired of the unit administrator as to how her mobilization would affect her promotion and was informed that she should not worry about not having a slot and that if she was selected for promotion or was released from active duty, they would help her locate a slot. She also contends that in fairness, the mobilized Soldier should be promoted on the date the list is approved and then be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019274
The applicant's medical records and profiling documents are not available for review by the Board. To support its opinion, the advisory official provided a copy of a memorandum from the director of officer personnel management to the office of Reserve component promotions, dated 17 June 2009, requesting publication of promotion orders for the applicant to the rank of LTC with a DOR of 12 June 2009 based on assignment to a valid position of higher authority, effective 27 May 2009. This...
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 | CY2009 | 20090006185
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090006185 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The NGB memorandum, dated 1 September 2004, concerning the promotion of mobilized ARNG officers applies only to those officers recommended for promotion to the grades of captain through lieutenant colonel. Notwithstanding the opinion provided by the NGB, there are no provisions to change the applicant's DOR for promotion to colonel to an earlier date because she was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001688
In the processing of this case, on 17 March 2009, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Human Resources Command, St. Louis (HRC-STL), which explains that the applicant's DOR as a Reserve Component (RC) MAJ was 3 April 1998, which made him eligible for promotion to the rank of LTC on 2 April 2005, based on the 7-year time in grade requirement. The applicant's orders specified that his DOR would be adjusted to the date he entered active duty, which directly affected his promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023391
Also on 11 March 2010, HRC-STL issued the applicant his promotion to LTC memorandum with an effective date of 11 March 2010. Therefore, the officer may have a maximum time in grade date that is before the approval date of the promotion advisory board/special selection board that recommended him or her for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard records and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending Federal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004679C070208
Memorandum, Headquarters, US Army Reserve Command, dated 21 January 1997, promoting the applicant to MAJ effective 23 May 1996. c. Memorandum, US Army Human Resources Command – St. Louis, dated 2 March 2004, promoting the applicant to LTC effective 21 February 2004. d. Orders M-050-0004, Headquarters, 94th RSC, dated 19 February 2003, involuntarily mobilizing the applicant for 1 year effective 24 February 2003. e. Copy of 10 U.S.C. The advisory opinion points out that the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014720
He claims under the policy contained in Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) Memorandum, dated 18 April 2008, which was in effect at the time, having made the LTC promotion list as a mobilized officer serving on active duty, he should have been promoted to LTC upon being matched against a position of like rank and grade. This official indicated the applicant was considered for promotion by the FY07 LTC RCSB that convened on 11 September 2007, and was promoted to LTC in orders, dated 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015404
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. The available evidence shows the applicant was erroneously not considered by a PVB for promotion to LTC. If an officer is erroneously not considered by a PVB, the position for which he is applying is filled by another officer.