Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001475
Original file (20110001475.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001475


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 his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC/O-5) be corrected from 16 July 2010 to 13 July 2010.

2.  The applicant states his DOR was recorded as 16 July 2010 due to maximum time-in-grade (TIG) having been reached.  However, he was assigned to an LTC/O-5 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position on 13 July 2010 and that should have been his DOR.

3.  The applicant provides:

* email between himself and his career manager
* his DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave)
* copy of Memorandum For:  Commander, Military Personnel Service Center, Subject:  Duty Memorandum

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officer serving on an AGR tour.

2.  The applicant was a Major (MAJ/O-4) with a DOR of 17 July 2003 when he was ordered to active duty in an AGR assignment coded for an LTC/O-5.  His orders were dated 5 April 2010 and had a reporting date of 19 July 2010 with early reporting authorized.

3.  The applicant reported to his new assignment on 13 July 2010.  He corresponded with his career manager at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), Fort Knox, KY via email concerning his DOR to LTC.  His career manager stated, "Your promotion was held up because you must be in a valid O5 position.  Once you are signed in, I can forward your 56-R to Promotions to cut your orders.  Once they are cut, your DOR will be the day you signed in [emphasis added].

4.  On 13 July 2010, the applicant forwarded proof of his having signed in to his O-5 position to his AHRC career manager.  When his promotion orders were published, his DOR was established as 16 July 2010.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, AHRC, Fort Knox which states the request cannot be approved because the AHRC Form 56-R was not received prior to his having reached his maximum TIG [the maximum TIG for O-4 is 7 years, making 16 July 2010 the applicant's maximum TIG date].  The advisory opinion further states promotion is dictated by Title 10 U. S. Code (USC)    section (§)14304.

6.  The applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion. He stated he did what was requested of him by his career manager, but it is not his responsibility to complete the AHRC Form 56-R; it is the career manager's responsibility.  His career manager told him to submit his DA Form 31 when he signed in and he would be given the sign-in date as his DOR.  He signed in on 13 July 2010.  The applicant asks the advisory opinion be discounted.

7.  Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy and procedures for the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the USAR.  It states AGR officers selected by a mandatory board will be promoted provided they are assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade.  An AGR officer who is selected for promotion by a mandatory promotion board, but who is not assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade, will be promoted on the date of assignment/attachment to a higher graded position.  The date of rank will be the date the officer attained maximum TIG or the date on which assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade, whichever is earlier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was a MAJ ordered to active duty in an AGR assignment requiring an LTC.  His maximum TIG date for promotion to LTC was 16 July 2010. He was told by his career manager he would be promoted to LTC effective the date he signed in to his AGR assignment.  That date was 13 July 2010.
2. On 13 July 2010, the applicant's career manager was supposed to submit an AHRC Form 56-R to Promotions Branch to effect the applicant's promotion.  According to the Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, the AHRC Form 56-R did not arrive before 16 July 2010, requiring the applicant's DOR to be his maximum TIG date (16 July 2010).  The Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, in an advisory opinion, recommended denial of the request.

3.  The advisory opinion notwithstanding, in the interest of justice and equity, the applicant's date of rank should be adjusted to 13 July 2010, the date he was promised by his career manager and the date he was assigned to an LTC position.

BOARD VOTE:

___X____  ___X___  ___X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

   a.  showing that the applicant's AHRC Form 56-R was received by Promotions Branch, AHRC, in sufficient time to establish his DOR as 13 July 2010; and by

	b.  adjusting the applicant's DOR to LTC from 16 July 2010 to 13 July 2010.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20110001475





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001475



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018537

    Original file (20100018537.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100018537 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. HRC has since changed its position on the interpretation of the regulation, but unfortunately it was not in time to save his assignment or the 30 December 2009 promotion. The opinion concludes that the date the applicant was assigned to the higher position was the earlier of the two dates and thus correctly established his DOR as 7 June 2010.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014403

    Original file (20100014403.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Because his DOR to MAJ was not annotated on the order announcing Federal recognition, he did not appear before the LTC selection board until 2005 and he was selected for promotion with an effective date of 18 January 2006. c. Because of the error in his DOR for MAJ, his DOR for LTC is also incorrect and should be 30 June 2004. The official noted that his DOR to MAJ was corrected by NGB Special Orders Number 177 AR (Extract) to reflect his maximum time in grade (TIG) as a CPT as required by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020760

    Original file (20090020760.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | 20120001025

    Original file (20120001025.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he was not promoted to COL on his promotion eligibility date (PED). He was selected by the 2010 board and the DOR for this board is the date of assignment to a COL position. The PED for AGR officers is the date the officer reaches maximum TIG, the date of assignment to the higher grade, or in the case an officer is selected on their second or subsequent consideration and the officer's maximum TIG has passed, the PED is the date of appointment in the next higher grade...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012854

    Original file (20140012854.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Memorandum, dated 8 October 2014, from HRC, subject: Advisory Opinion Regarding Promotion to LTC for [applicant], states: * the applicant's request is without merit * the FY 2013 JA promotion list to LTC was approved on 30 September 2013 * the Office of Promotions promotes TPU officers based on either the date that officer is assigned to a position at the next higher grade or the maximum TIG, whichever comes first * an AHRC Form 56-R (Promotion Qualification Statement) was never received for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002975

    Original file (20140002975.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated he is asking the Board to amend his date of rank (DOR) for LTC based on the fact that had he not been deployed several times he would have been able to complete ILE and would have been considered for promotion by the FY 2010 LTC PSB. c. The message stated a military education waiver could be granted for officers being considered in or above the primary zone of consideration if they had served 12 or more cumulative months of documented deployment outside of the continental United...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013779

    Original file (20110013779.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 January 2006, he was issued Memorandum, Subject: Eligibility for Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Officer Not on Active Duty Memorandum that notified him he had been selected for promotion under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-155 to LTC by a board that adjourned on 30 September 2005. On 2 July 2012, he submitted a rebuttal wherein he stated: * The NGB omitted a fact that negates their opinion in that at the time of his selection for promotion to MAJ, he was in an AGR...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019825

    Original file (20100019825.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He contends that as an ARNG AGR officer, he was authorized DORs determined as follows in accordance with (IAW) paragraphs 4-15 and 4-19d of Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), effective 1 October 1994 for his promotion to MAJ and 1 February 1998 for his promotion to LTC as follows: a. Paragraph 4-15 provides that the Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) is the date the officer meets the eligibility criteria for promotion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001473

    Original file (20130001473.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of his promotion to LTC, his effective date was 11 December 2011, with a DOR of 10 February 2005. The applicant went before the 2007 APL LTC Board and was DA selected for promotion; however, due to control grades for AGR LTC's he was not promoted until December 2011. Officers selected by an SSB are eligible for the same date of rank that they would have received by the original board in which the error occurred.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019274

    Original file (20090019274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...