IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100024649 


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, in effect, an adjustment of her promotion effective date (pay purposes) for lieutenant colonel (LTC) from 9 June 2005 with entitlement to back pay and allowances. 

2.  She states, in effect, she was not considered for promotion to LTC by the 2002 promotion board because her promotion packet got mixed-up with the pay and military history of others.  While she was on active duty from 20 March 2003 through 29 January 2004 she should have been paid as an LTC.  Upon an inquiry the board stated that she should have been promoted.  She was then promoted with a date of rank of 9 June 2002 [sic].  She would have received the correct pay if the promotion board had not made the mistake initially.  There is a significant difference in pay.  Her promotion reconsideration board and their decision were made after she was off active duty, but she really would have been promoted before her call-up date had the mistake in her records not taken place. 

3.  She provides:

* 2004 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Letter from the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components
* 2005 LTC promotion orders

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military records show she was appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve, Army Nurse Corps, as a second lieutenant, effective 19 May 1984.  She was promoted to major (MAJ) effective 1 May 1996.  

3.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 2002 Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) which convened on 28 May and recessed on 28 June 2002.  The board results were approved on 18 September 2002.  

4.  She was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and entered an active duty status in the rank of MAJ on 20 March 2003.  

5.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 2003 AMEDD RCSB which convened on 28 May and recessed on 28 June 2003.  The board results were approved on 7 October 2003.

6.  She was honorably released from active duty in the rank of MAJ on 29 January 2004 and transferred to a Reserve unit.

7.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 2004 AMEDD RCSB which convened on 17 May and recessed on 12 June 2004.  The board results were approved on 15 October 2004.

8.  The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Integrated Web Service (IWS), Transaction Detail section, contains the entries, "applicant called on 17 June 2005 asking for assistance with finding an Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) position.  She was currently in the NAAD and was transferring into the Individual Ready Reserve to get promoted, then would transfer into the IMA reserve position at Fort Hood, TX.  "She would contact HRC when she was ready to move from the IRR to the IMA.  Concurrence from (National AMEDD Augmentation Detachment) IMA agency received for position (attached)."

9.  The HRC - IWS, Transaction Detail section, also contains the entries, "Officer Promotions, DTD: 07/14/2005, Position ID: MSL44, Order Executive Date: 09-JUN-2005, New Grade: LTC, New Date of Rank: 18-SEP-2002" and "Revoked 14-JUL-2005, B07503858, Officer Promotions, DTD: 07/07/2005, Position ID: MSL44, Order Executive Date: 09-JUN-2005, New Grade: LTC, New Date of Rank: 09-JUN-2005,"

10.  There is no evidence of record she was assigned or served in a LTC position prior to 9 June 2005.

11.  Orders B-07-504124 were issued by the HRC on 14 July 2005 promoting her to LTC with a date of rank of 18 September 2002, the approval date of the 2002 AMEDD RCSB, and promotion effective date of 9 June 2005.  

12.  On 20 April 2011, a staff member of the Office of Promotions, Human Resources Command (HRC) Ft. Knox, KY, verified the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 2002 through 2004 promotions boards.  She was considered for promotion to LTC by a Special Selection Board  (SSB) under the 2002 year criteria.  She was given a date of rank for LTC of 18 September 2002, the approval date of the original board.  The applicant was given a promotion effective date of 9 June 2005, based on her assignment to a higher grade position on that date.

13.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve and ARNG officers.  Paragraph 4-21(2), states that if an officer is selected by a SSB, the officer's date of rank and effective date for pay and allowances would be the same as if the officer had been recommended for promotion to the grade by the mandatory board that should have considered the officer.  This regulation states an officer is promoted after selection if all qualifications for promotion are met.  In no case, will the date of rank or promotion effective date be earlier that the date the board is approved.  The effective date and date of promotion will be no earlier than the approval date of the board or the date the officer is assigned to a higher graded position, whichever is later.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to correction of her promotion effective date for LTC from 9 June 2005, with entitlement to back pay and allowances.

2.  Her contentions have been carefully considered; however, the evidence of record shows she served on active duty in the rank of MAJ from 20 March 2003 through 29 January 2004.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 2002, 2003, and 2004 AMEDD RCSB.  She was released from active duty in the rank of MAJ on 29 January 2004.  She was subsequently selected for promotion to LTC by a SSB under the 2002 year criteria.  

3.  On 17 June 2005, she requested assistance from HRC in finding an IMA position to get promoted.  She was assigned to a LTC position on 9 June 2005.  HRC issued orders promoting her to LTC with a promotion effective date (pay purpose) of 9 June 2005, based on her assignment to the higher graded position on that date.  She was given a date of rank for LTC of 18 September 2002, the approval date of the 2002 AMEDD RCSB.

3.  There is no evidence of record and she has provided insufficient evidence to show she was assigned to or served in a LTC position prior to 9 June 2005, thereby making her eligible for an earlier promotion effective date with entitlement to back pay and allowances.

4.  Therefore, it is concluded she was promoted to LTC with the earliest effective date she was eligible for and she has not shown otherwise.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her request.

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)                                         AR20100024649



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100024649



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1