IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 3 April 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110018218
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) to first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 be changed to 28 October 2010.
2. The applicant states he was under a suspension of favorable personnel actions (flag) for height and weight which was scheduled to be removed on 7 November 2010. He states the paperwork was processed but not signed until 15 January 2011. He states at this point he was eligible for promotion, but this action was never updated in the record through no fault of his own. He states that only after he contacted the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) promotions branch was the flag lifted.
3. The applicant provides a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 15 January 2011, and DA Form 2B (Personnel Qualification Record), dated 26 August 2011, in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The record shows the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 3 April 2009 and was promoted to 1LT on 17 July 2011. The record is void of any documents related to the flagging action referred to by the applicant.
2. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC Chief, Officer Promotions. This official opines, based on the information provided, that the applicant's request to adjust his DOR be denied. He states the applicant was previously coded (49) ineligible for promotion by his command. This code was removed/changed which allowed HRC to promote the applicant to 1LT/O-2 effective and with a DOR of 17 July 2011. He further states their office cannot affirm that the DA Form 268 provided by the applicant relates to noncompliance with height and weight standards. Weight control flag removals are "close coded" E-type report, not code C-type as indicated on the DA Form 268 provided by the applicant. This official indicates the applicant should contact his Personnel Administrative Office directly for additional information as it relates to his current DOR.
3. On 29 November 2011, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply to or rebut its contents. To date, he has failed to respond.
4. The applicant provides a DA Form 268, dated 15 January 2011, which indicates the flagging action was removed on 1 November 2010 and the case was closed favorably under code C.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the policy for Army officer promotions. Paragraph 1-19 provides guidance on officers in a non-promotable status and lists the conditions that result in an officer being in a non-promotable status. Included in this list are officers who are or should be under suspension of favorable personnel actions and those who are documented as overweight. The promotions of officers in a non-promotable status are automatically delayed. When a delay in promotion is ended, the promotion approval authority will determine if the officer was, in fact, unqualified (as opposed to ineligible) for promotion during all or part of the delay and will adjust the DOR and effective date of promotion accordingly. For officers whose promotions are delayed for noncompliance with height/weight standards, the date of rank and effective date of promotion will be the day the officers meet the standards.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request to adjust his 1LT DOR to 28 October 2010 has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this request.
2. The evidence of record is void of any information related to the delay in the applicant's promotion or to the flagging action that was imposed against him. Further, as indicated in the HRC advisory opinion, the final flag provided by the applicant contains a "close code" that is not consistent with the failure to meet height weight standards. Absent evidence to the contrary and given that HRC promotions branch confirms it promoted the applicant on the date his command confirmed his eligibility, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.
3. The applicant is advised that if he presents sufficient evidence that he was eligible for promotion earlier than the date he was promoted to his Personnel Administrative office, his request may be readdressed through normal personnel channels to HRC.
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 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) AR20110018218
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110018218
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019977
The applicant states: * on 8 August 2008, her battalion commander notified her that she was suspended from her position as a platoon leader; she was also issued a no contact order * she was pending an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct; this investigation concluded on 12 August 2008 * she was reprimanded by her brigade commander on 21 August 2008; she also received a referred officer evaluation report (OER) * she rebutted the OER because it did not accurately reflect her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015719
She states, in effect, his promotion was delayed under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), paragraphs 4-11c(10) and 4-18c(2), because he had been flagged for APFT failure. It states an officer who is promoted to the next higher grade as the result of the recommendation of an SSB convened under this section shall, upon such promotion, have the same DOR, the same effective date for the pay and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006287
She request an exception to the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotion) so that her date of rank can be corrected to reflect her actual effective date of rank of 1 May 2012. On 20 March 2015, HRC published Orders Number 079-003 promoting the applicant to LTC with an effective date and DOR as 9 March 2015. Immediately thereafter, her flag was removed, as required by regulation, and she was promoted to LTC on that date (9 March 2015).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015411
The applicant provides the following documentary evidence: * self-authored promotion date comparison sheet, dated 21 May 2010 * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records), dated 9 June 1988 * DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 17 February 1988 * memorandum, dated 5 February 1988, subject: Involuntary Separation Action * memorandum for record, dated 10 June 1988, concerning an appeal of his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) * Orders 6-3,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012352
JFH OKARNG Orders 259-006, dated 15 September 2008, promoted the applicant to 1LT, effective and with a date of rank of 25 September 2005, and NGB Special Orders Number 258 AR, dated 8 October 2008, granted the applicant Federal Recognition in the rank of 1LT effective the same date. The applicant provides a statement from the Chief, Officer Branch, Joint Force Headquarters, who recommends the applicant's request that her DOR be adjusted to 25 September 2005 be granted based on her having...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004083
She also states that the flag was placed on 2 June 2010 which is after the effective date of her promotion to CPT (1 June 2010). By regulation, if within 6 months after the effective date of promotion new information results and is determined by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) that an officer was, on the effective date of promotion, in a non-promotable status, that promotion would be deemed to have been automatically delayed. While it is true that had her chain of command...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013632
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was in compliance with Army weight control standards in order to reestablish his entitlement to the Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus (NPSEB) and Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) he contracted for at the time of his enlistment in the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG). His OMPF contains 2 DA Forms 268 that show a FLAG was initiated after he failed to meet Army height and weight standards on 5 February 2012. As...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017413
The applicant requests, in effect, that his June 2003 flagging action be rescinded and that an adjustment to his promotion effective date and date of rank for major be made. The applicant's DA Form 5500-R, dated 2 October 2004, shows he was in compliance with Army height and weight standards. However, it appears the applicant was promoted to major in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 14311, which provided for an officer's promotion 18 months after the approval date of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001447
The applicant provides copies of: a. a letter from the Board with Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 11 August 2011, notifying her of denial; b. an email communication between the applicant and another Army officer, dated 20 May and 11 June 2010; c. an email communication between the Commander, Special Troops Battalion (STB) and the Brigade Combat Team (BCT) trial counsel, subject: Commander's Inquiry, dated 26 May 2010; d. a Memorandum for Record, dated 19 September 2010, written by an Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000141
The applicant states, in effect, he went before a promotion board for SGT on 2 May 2013. a. Paragraph 5a states "Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the Administrative Records Corrections (ARC) process if he/he would have made the DA promotion point cutoff score, but was in a suspension of favorable action status and he/he was exonerated, the case was closed favorably, or a FLAG for adverse action was removed, provided the Soldier was otherwise qualified." While...