Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018074
Original file (20110018074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018074 


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 his promotion effective date (PED) and date of rank (DOR) for major.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  his previous promotion dates were 10 June, or earlier, of the year the promotion was due;

	b.  he was informed he had been selected for promotion by the board; however, his Troop Program Unit did not submit the required documentation to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) for the promotion to take effect;

	c.  his battalion commander did not want him to get promoted because he would not deploy with the unit to Iraq, due to a security clearance issue;

	d.  it is an injustice because some of his peers, who were commissioned with him and are now in the same unit, were promoted with their contemporaries and received all benefits; and

	e.  his promotion order should be amended to show a PED and DOR of 10 June 2003.

3.  The applicant provides AHRC Orders B-04-603387, dated 27 April 2006.

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.  On 10 June 1988, the applicant accepted an appointment in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the rank of second lieutenant (O-1).  He was promoted to first lieutenant (O-2), effective 24 May 1991.

3.  The applicant accepted an appointment in the Illinois Army National Guard on 10 May 1995, in pay grade O-2.  He was transferred to the USAR on 1 June 1996 and promoted to captain (O-3), effective 2 June 1996.  He was promoted to major (O-4), effective 27 April 2006, with a DOR of 9 December 2003.

4.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Department of the Army (DA) Promotions Special Actions, AHRC, who recommends denial of the applicant's request.  This official states the applicant's maximum promotion eligibility date, based on his selection for promotion by the 2002 Major, Army Promotion List Reserve Component Promotion Board, was initially established as 9 June 2002.  The board was released on 16 July 2002; however, the applicant was promotion ineligible due to a denied security clearance.  The applicant was subsequently flagged under suspension of favorable personnel actions for a security violation, effective 
25 May 2005.  In April 2006, Headquarters, Department of the Army, (St. Louis, Missouri) Office of Promotions was directed to promote the applicant in accordance with Title 10, section 14311 (10 USC 14311) and to award a DOR effective 18 months past the promotion eligibility date.  On 27 April 2006, the applicant was promoted to major with a 9 December 2003 DOR (18 months past 9 June 2002).

5.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement and/or rebuttal on 18 January 2012.  No response was received.

6.  Title 10 USC 14311(b) provides when the appointment of an officer to a higher grade is delayed for lack of qualifications and the Secretary concerned later determines the officer is qualified for promotion to the higher grade, the officer shall be retained on the promotion list.  This section further provides the officer shall, upon promotion to the higher grade, have the same date of rank, the same effective date for pay and allowances of that grade, and the same position on the Reserve-Active-Status List (RASL) as the officer would have had if no delay had intervened, unless the Secretary concerned determines the officer was unqualified for promotion for any part of the delay.  Finally, this section explains if the Secretary makes such a determination, the Secretary may adjust such date of rank, effective date of pay and allowances, and position on the RASL as the Secretary considers appropriate under the circumstances.

7.  Title 10 USC 14311(d) provides that the appointment of an officer to a higher grade may not be delayed under subsection (a) or (b) for more than 6 months after the date on which the officer would otherwise have been promoted unless the Secretary concerned specifies a further period of delay.  An officer's appointment may not be delayed more than 90 days after final action has been taken in any criminal case against the officer in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction or more than 90 days after final action has been taken in any court-martial case against the officer.  Except for court action, a promotion may not be delayed more than 18 months after the date on which the officer would otherwise have been promoted.

8.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve component officers.

	a.  This regulation specifies that an officer selected for promotion must meet all requirements before being promoted to include possessing a current (updated) security clearance.  When the officer does not meet the qualifications for promotion, the effective date of promotion will not be earlier than the later date all qualifications are met.  Promotion authorities will ensure that a favorable security screening is completed, to include an interim clearance, before announcing a promotion.

	b.  It also specifies that only the Secretary of the Army is authorized to determine whether an officer was unqualified for promotion during any part of an involuntary delay of promotion and make an adjustment to an officer's DOR and PED.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.
2.  The available evidence does not show any error or injustice in the delay of his promotion to major because of his security clearance.  He was disqualified from promotion to major when he was initially eligible because he did not have a valid security clearance.  He was subsequently promoted, in accordance with Title 10 USC 14311(d) because a promotion may not be delayed more than 18 months after the date on which the officer would otherwise have been promoted.

3.  The applicant has failed to provide any evidence showing that the delay in his security clearance was unavoidable or through no fault of his own.  While the Board may grant relief as a matter of equity when such evidence is available for review, its absence in this case precludes such consideration.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20110018074





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018074



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008486C070208

    Original file (20040008486C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests her effective date of rank (DOR) for promotion to major (O-4) be adjusted to 25 June 2003. In the Advisory Opinion, the DCS stated all other criteria appear to have been met on the board approval date and the United States Army Reserve Command, St. Louis, as the issuing authority for her promotion memorandum, must make any corrections to her DOR. This section further provides the officer shall, upon promotion to the higher grade, have the same date of rank, the same...

  • 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 | CY2005 | 20050000063C070206

    Original file (20050000063C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was selected for promotion to major by the 2000 RCSB with a promotion eligibility date (PED) of 26 April 1999. The opinion also stated that the applicant was subsequently promoted to major on 26 April 2002, with a DOR of 14 March 2002, in accordance with Army Regulation 135-155. The applicant stated that he had called AHRC and was informed that he was passed over for promotion; however, he has provided no evidence, and there is none in the available records, to corroborate...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013672

    Original file (20070013672.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For these reasons, applicant respectfully requests correction of his military records to show that he was promoted on active duty to lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank and effective date of 1 July 2004. Counsel provides copies of the applicant's NGB AGR assignment orders; his Eligibility for Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Officer Not on Active Duty memorandum; his officer evaluation reports ending 4 May 2004, 3 May 2005, 6 November 2005, and 21 July 2007; letters of support from...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014217

    Original file (20110014217.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the governing regulation provides for the requested adjustment of his DOR and effective date for promotion to LTC. Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012064

    Original file (20070012064.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his date of rank (DOR) to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 from 24 March 2005 to 15 September 2003 or a date to be determined by the Board based on the evidence provided. National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia, Memorandum, dated 16 December 2003, subject: Army National Guard (ARNG) Promotion Process for Commissioned Officers, provides guidance to The Adjutants General (TAG) on the procedures for requesting Federal recognition of first lieutenant, DA...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011735

    Original file (20090011735.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The advisory opinion points out that the applicant was selected by the DA Colonel Army Promotion List board on 4 August 2006 and that he was not promoted to the rank of colonel until 30 April 2008. The evidence of record shows the applicant was selected for promotion to colonel on 4 August 2006 but not in an O-6 position, and at the time of his selection he was serving in an AGR status. There is no evidence to show he was eligible for promotion on 4 August 2006; however, it would be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04135-02

    Original file (04135-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Whether a Reserve flag officer whose Senate 2. confirmation for promotion to rear admiral (O-8) is delayed pending the results of an investigation and who is subsequently cleared in the investigation, confirmed by the Senate for such promotion, and promoted, is entitled to pay and allowances for that higher rank, and credit for time in service in that grade, from the effective date of rank he would have received, but for the delay? or list of officers nominated by the President to the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050003128

    Original file (20050003128.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Chief, GOMO further states that the applicant’s nomination for Federal recognition was subsequently withheld by the Secretary of the Army due to adverse information ascribed to the applicant. The available records do not include the applicant's Federal recognition packet, and/or documents related to the delay in his appointment. Further, even if the administrative notification requirement was not met, it appears clear the applicant’s Federal recognition was delayed by The Secretary of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011997

    Original file (20110011997.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The official stated: * Based on the applicant's appointment on 18 March 2008, the earliest he was eligible for promotion to 1LT was 18 March 2010 * At the date of his promotion eligibility, he was not fully qualified for promotion to 1LT because of his suspended security clearance * The applicant required a minimum of a secret security clearance * Once his suspension was lifted on 30 November 2010, he was eligible for promotion on that date * Eligibility does not mean automatic promotion and...