IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  24 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110012172 


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 correction of her date of rank (DOR) to major (MAJ) in the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) from 3 February 2011 to 24 September 2010.

2.  The applicant states her promotion packet was submitted by her chain of command on 22 September 2011 and the Federal Recognition Board (FRB) was held on 24 September 2011.  Her packet was not submitted to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) due to miscommunication on the need for a control grade.  However, once the memorandum from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Manager was issued releasing the control grade, her packet was ultimately sent to the NGB on 13 October 2010.  Her packet was clearly delayed through no fault of her own.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Statement from the OHARNG Officer Personnel Manager
* Recommendation for promotion memorandum
* NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board)
* Request for promotion by the AGR manager
* Email exchange
* Orders 286-951 (State promotion orders)
* Local tracking system of her Federal recognition packet
* Officer Log Action
* Army Board for Correction of Military Records Information Packet

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service in the ARNG, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer and she executed an oath of office on 8 June 2001.

2.  She concurrently entered active duty on 8 June 2001 and she served as a signal officer in various stateside or overseas assignments.  She was honorably released from active duty on 4 July 2004 and she was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete her remaining service obligation.

3.  She was appointed as a first lieutenant in the OHARNG and she executed an oath of office on 3 September 2004.  She entered active duty on 1 October 2004 and she was promoted to captain on 9 February 2005.  She was honorably released from active duty on 11 September 2005.

4.  On 8 July 2009, she was ordered to active duty in the AGR program.  She was assigned as a chemical officer to the 52nd Civil Support Team, OHARNG.

5.  On 27 August 2010, the applicant's chain of command submitted a recommendation to promote her to MAJ under a vacancy promotion.

6.  On 24 September 2010, an FRB was held by the OHARNG to determine if the applicant was qualified to be awarded Federal recognition for promotion to MAJ under a position vacancy in the OHARNG.  The proceedings indicated the applicant was satisfactory in her physical qualifications, moral character, and general qualifications.

7.  On 13 October 2010, the OHARNG published Orders Number 286-951 promoting the applicant to MAJ with an effective date and DOR of 24 September 2010.

8.  On 8 February 2011, NGB published Special Orders Number 25 AR extending the applicant Federal recognition for promotion to MAJ with an effective date of 3 February 2011.

9.  The applicant provides an undated/unsigned statement from the OHARNG Officer Personnel Branch Chief wherein he states the applicant's unit vacancy was delayed because she required a memorandum stating there was a control grade available before her promotion packet could be submitted to the NGB.  

Initially, the AGR manager thought he had to wait until another officer's Federal recognition orders were published to promote him to lieutenant colonel.  The AGR Manager later discovered he had a control grade without having to wait.  Once the control grade was released, he published the State orders on 13 October 2010 promoting her to MAJ effective 24 September 2010.

10.  During the processing of this case, on 30 April 2012, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Personnel Policy Division, NGB.  The advisory official recommended disapproval and stated that:

	a.  A memorandum from the OHARNG indicates the processing of the applicant's promotion packet was delayed due to an administrative error at the unit level.  An FRB was held at the State on 24 September 2010.  As part of the promotion process for AGR Soldiers, a memorandum has to be generated indicating that a controlled grade slot is available for the Soldier to promote into.  The AGR Manager stated in an email, dated 27 September 2010, that he was awaiting the availability of a slot to place the Soldier in.  The AGR Manager was not aware at the time that an individual’s promotion packet could still be processed even though the intended slot had not been vacated due to the pending promotion of the service member in that position.  This delayed the issuance of the required memorandum by a little over 2 weeks.

	b.  Once clarification was provided to the AGR Manager, the memorandum was generated on 13 October 2010, showing the availability of a slot and showing the DOR as 24 September 2010.  The OHARNG then generated a memorandum recommending the applicant's promotion to MAJ; subsequently submitting the packet to the FRB for processing on 14 October 2010.  In consultation with the OHARNG and the Federal Recognition Section, this was a unit vacancy promotion.  The effective date of promotion and date of rank of an officer who is promoted under the position vacancy system is the date the Chief, NGB, extends Federal recognition.

11.  On 1 May 2012, a copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to allow here the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  She did not respond.

12.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14308f, states "the effective date of a promotion of a reserve commissioned officer of the Army who is extended Federal recognition in the next higher grade in the ARNG under Title 32, section 307 or 310 shall be the date on which such Federal recognition in that grade is so extended."

13.  The Reserve Officer Personnel Management handbook, paragraph 1-2 states, "the effective date of promotion and date of rank of an officer who is promoted under the position vacancy system is the date the Chief, NGB, extends Federal recognition.  It is not the date of appointment into the position, nor is the date of the FRB action if either of those dates is an earlier date.  Therefore, there is no entitlement to pay and allowances prior to the date the Chief, NGB, extends Federal recognition."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was recommended for promotion by her chain of command on 27 August 2010.  An FRB subsequently convened on 24 September 2010 and found her fully qualified.  Since she was in an AGR program, a memorandum was required to indicate that a controlled grade slot was available for her to promote into.

2.  The AGR Manager stated he was awaiting the availability of a slot to place her in.  The AGR Manager was not aware at the time that her promotion packet could still be processed even though the intended slot had not been vacated due to the pending promotion of the member in the position.  This delayed the issuance of the required memorandum by a little over 2 weeks.

3.  Once clarification was provided to the AGR Manager, the memorandum was generated on 13 October 2010, showing the availability of a slot and showing the DOR as 24 September 2010.  Her promotion was processed by the State and submitted to the NGB on or about 14 October 2010.  Since this was a unit vacancy promotion, her effective date of promotion and date of rank would have been the date the Chief, NGB, extended Federal recognition.

4.  On 8 February 2011, orders were issued promoting the applicant to MAJ with a promotion effective date of 3 February 2011.  Taking into account the approximate 120 days for a promotion packet to go through the necessary approval channels and be signed by the Secretary of Defense, she was promoted to MAJ in a timely manner.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20110012172



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012172



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1