Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016304
Original file (20110016304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110016304 


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 adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant (1LT) to 11 March 1999.

2.  The applicant states being selected for active duty, Signal Corps, by the November 1994 Selection and Branching Board and not having entered active duty at the time of his appointment, he fell under the definition of Officer Active Duty Obligator (OADO), as specified in Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Method of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements and Enforcement Procedures) and, as such, he should have been promoted to 1LT at the 3-year mark as specified in Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), paragraph 2-2.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Extract of the 2005 Army Regulation 135-91
* Change 9 to Army Regulation 135-155 (April 1981)
* Appointment memorandum, dated 17 January 1996
* Request for Duty Change, dated 5 March 1996
* Army Reserve Status and Address Verification, 2001

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 available record shows he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Reserve Officers' Training (ROTC) program, on 4 September 1991.  He attended St. Cloud State University in Minnesota.

3.  He provides a memorandum and accompanying endorsements for a "Request for Duty Change" as follows:

	a.  Memorandum through the U.S. Army Cadet Command, Fort Monroe, VA to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO, dated 5 March 1996, wherein the Chief, Cadet Personnel Division, recommended approval of the applicant's request to change from active duty to Reserve Forces Duty.  The memorandum also stated he was selected for active duty, Signal Corps, by the November 1994 Selection Branch Board and that due to delay in commissioning, he found other employment.

	b.  First endorsement, dated 11 March 1996, wherein the Chief, Accessions Management and Scholarship Division, U.S. Army Cadet Command, Fort Monroe, forwarded the request to the Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA.

	c.  Second endorsement, dated 15 March 1996, wherein the Chief, Accessions Branch, Department of the Army, disapproved the request.

4.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant and he executed an oath of office on 11 March 1996.  He was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).

5.  There is no indication in the available record that shows whether the applicant was an active participant in training in any unit.  Likewise, there is no evidence of completion of the Officer Basic Course or any other military education.

6.  Orders D-10-149882, issued by the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO, dated 26 October 2001, honorably discharged the applicant from the USAR effective the same date.  His rank is shown as "2LT" on the discharge orders.

7.  On 23 September 2008, he was appointed as a 2LT in the Minnesota Army National Guard (MNARNG).  He completed the Officer Basic Leadership Course on 13 April 2009 and he was promoted to 1LT on the same date.

8.  He previously submitted a request to the ABCMR for waiver of the military education requirements for promotion to 1LT (and captain (CPT)) and contended that he had moved 6 times between 1994 and 1999, but kept the ROTC chain informed of his address.

9.  On 13 April 2011, the Board denied his request for:

* A waiver of education requirements for promotion to 1LT and CPT
* Adjustment of his DOR to 1LT from 13 April 2009 to 12 September 1997
* Consideration for promotion to CPT by a special selection board

10.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve Component officers.  Paragraph 2-15b authorizes waivers for non-statutory military education requirements.  Table 2-1 provides for the time-in-grade requirements for promotion of commissioned officers.  The version in effect at the time stated for promotion from 2LT to 1LT, the minimum number of years in the lower grade is 3 years.  Additionally, an officer must meet the required educational requirements prior to being promoted (Officer Basic Course) as well as meeting the height/weight standards, Army Physical Fitness Test, and security requirements.  Change 9, dated 15 April 1981, stated that 2LTs assigned to Control Groups and officers transferred from OADO Control Group to Annual Training Control Group who are awaiting active duty or active duty for training orders are not required to meet the military education requirements for promotion.  Promotion under these circumstances does not negate the requirement to complete the basic course at a subsequent date.

11.  The 2005 version of Army Regulation 135-155 defines an OADO as an officer appointed in the USAR from the ROTC program who is obliged to serve on active duty or on active duty for training and does not enter active duty at the time of appointment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's complete service records are not available for review with this case.  The available record shows he was appointed as a 2LT in the USAR on 11 March 1996 and he was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).

2.  Although he contends he kept ROTC officials informed of his address, there is no evidence he did the same with the officials who would have managed his career, the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis.  As such, he never completed the required basic officer course.

3.  There is no indication in the available records that confirms he completed the military education requirements or any other mandatory requirements that would have qualified him for promotion to 1LT.  He was ultimately discharged on 26 October 2001.

4.  It is clear that his failure to exercise due diligence contributed greatly to his non-selection for promotion.  This, coupled with the lack of documentary evidence, makes it impossible for the Board to render a favorable decision in his case.

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)                                         AR20110016304



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110016304



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018488

    Original file (20140018488.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This NGB Form 78, dated 8 July 2014, did not recommend him for 1LT due to his having 36 months TIG. The NGB Form 78 stated [The Applicant] was not recommended for promotion and should be discharged upon his 36 month TIG date of 28 July 2014, due to his disenrollment from the ECP at his school. The evidence of record and the documents he provided confirmed that from the time he entered the GAARNG as an ECP 2LT on 28 July 2011 through the date of his discharge just over 36 months later on 12...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013640

    Original file (20130013640.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110016304 on 6 September 2012. He provided a copy of and his record contains Orders D-10-149882, issued by the USAR Personnel Command, dated 26 October 2001, which honorably discharged him from the USAR effective the same date. An email correspondence, dated 3 February 2011,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001759

    Original file (20130001759.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130001759 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) which opines, in effect, that the applicant was not subject to the education requirements for promotion to the rank of 1LT and should have been promoted effective 13 November 2011. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and State ARNG...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011134C070206

    Original file (20050011134C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), effective 1 September 1994, paragraph 4-17 stated a qualified 1LT would not be promoted before the date of completion of 3 years of promotion service with two specified exceptions (neither of which applied to the applicant). Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016580

    Original file (20080016580.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The advisory opinion points out that the applicant successfully completed the Early Commissioning Program, that he signed an Oath of Office in the USAR on 29 May 2004, that he received Federal Recognition on 30 May 2004, that he completed the OBC on 21 February 2008, and that he was promoted to first lieutenant on 22 February 2008. Evidence of record also shows that he was promoted to first lieutenant and granted Federal Recognition for promotion to first lieutenant effective 22 February...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004281

    Original file (20150004281.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Counsel states, in effect: * the applicant was denied due process associated with his 2012 ROTC disenrollment board * he was not given notice of the misconduct he was required to defend himself against at the disenrollment board * he was not given the right to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights to what was a second disenrollment board that discharged him * due to the errors made by two boards, the applicant should not have been exposed to a disenrollment board or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065542C070421

    Original file (2001065542C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That he meets the eligibility requirements for promotion to major but that the computer at the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) does not show that he has completed the Infantry Officer Advanced Course, so he has not been considered for promotion. On 8 January 1986, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) responded to a request from the applicant, case number AC 85-00251, to correct his commissioning as a USAR officer from 23 August 1983...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017663

    Original file (20100017663.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this memorandum the applicant detailed his military history and stated he had moved six times between 1994 and 1999 and kept the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) advised of his current address. In accordance with Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers), an officer must meet the required educational requirements prior to being promoted (in the case of 2LT's) or the convening date of the promotion board (for 1LT's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026100

    Original file (20100026100.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, * education waivers with consecutive promotion corrections due to the findings of Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20070001144, dated 2 August 2007 * a 4-year extension of his mandatory removal date (MRD) to allow him to qualify for a 20-year nonregular retirement 2. On 2 August 2007, the ABCMR granted his request for correction of his records as follows: * determined his 19 April 1996 DA Form 5074-1-R was incorrect *...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000707C070206

    Original file (20050000707C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Gerald J. Purcell | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. She adds that she was led to believe by NMARNG personnel managers that she required Officer Basic Course (OBC) completion in order to be promoted, but she later learned this was not true in her case because she was an Early Commissioning Program (ECP) graduate. ROPMA states that promotion to 1LT will take place after 2 years of commissioned service and...