BOARD DATE:	  23 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120012808 


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 active date of rank (ADOR) to include credit for his Army National Guard (ARNG) inactive duty training (IDT) service and membership points.

2.  He states he was accepted for recall to active duty effective 1 December 2010.  His ADOR was adjusted from 15 December 2006 to 31 December 2008.  During a recent review of his Officer Record Brief he asked for a recalculation of his ADOR and learned it was 2 April 2009.  He was told that only the time he spent in an active duty status was credited for ADOR.

	a.  He states it is an injustice that Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) does not provide for counting ARNG service other than active duty service toward ADOR.

	b.  He further proposes how he believes the regulatory policy should be changed to correct this injustice.

3.  He provides an ARNG Retirement Points History Statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it.  In appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice.  The applicant's proposal for changing Army Regulation 600-8-29 is not within the purview of the Board.  As such, this portion of his statement will not be further discussed in this proceeding.

2.  His records show he was promoted to the rank of major in the ARNG effective 15 December 2006 with a DOR of the same date.

3.  He was separated from the ARNG effective 30 November 2010 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) for the purpose of being called to active duty.

4.  U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Orders A-11-031120, dated 3 November 2010, ordered him to active duty on 1 December 2010.

5.  HRC Orders Number 181-110, dated 29 June 2012, show his ADOR was determined to be 2 April 2009.

6.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, HRC.  HRC stated a review was conducted to determine if the applicant's ADOR was properly adjusted when he was placed on the Active Duty List (ADL).  After reviewing his Official Military Personnel File (now known as the Army Military Human Resource Record), HRC determined the ADOR of 2 April 2009 was the correct date and that no further action was warranted.

	a.  The advisory official indicated the adjustment was based in part on a computation of the applicant's active Federal commissioned service (AFCS) time spent in the rank of major by using his certified DA Form 1506 (Service Computation), dated 11 May 2011, and his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 23A (ARNG Retirement Points History Statement), dated 2 February 2011.

	b.  The applicant was placed on the ADL on 1 December 2010 and by subtracting 608 days of AFCS, his ADOR was adjusted to 2 April 2009.

	c.  HRC stated the Assistant Secretary of Defense implemented the provision of adjusting the ADOR on 6 March 2000 and subsequently this change was incorporated into Army Regulation 600-8-29 on 25 February 2005.  The Assistant Secretary of Defense stated in his memorandum that "'this change was necessary to ensure those officers (such as [Applicant]) are given the appropriate amount of time to gain the qualifications and experience necessary to be competitive for promotion to the next higher grade.'  Keeping this in mind, [Applicant] currently has 30 months of evaluation time as a major and the current average of evaluation time for majors who fall into the primary zone of consideration for Lieutenant Colonel is 72 months."
 
7.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  On 27 September 2012, he responded by stating he had 57 months of evaluated time as a major.  He further states that although he has served continuously in either an active duty or Reserve Component status without a break in service since his commissioning in 1995, HRC is only counting his service in an active duty status.

8.  He submits an NGB Form 23A, dated 2 February 2011, whereon he indicates the additional service he proposes should be credited toward his ADOR.

9.  He also submits DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) for six rating periods in the rank of major from 9 September 2007 through 7 May 2012.

10.  During the processing of the case, a member of the Board staff contacted the advisory opinion point of contact for additional clarification on the methodology for determining an officer's ADOR.  The official stated the policy of adjusting an officer's ADOR to a later date to reflect such officer's qualifications and experience is intended to make him/her more competitive for promotion to the next higher grade, thus being of potential benefit rather than a detriment to such an officer.  Therefore, adjusting an officer's ADOR by crediting more than an officer's active duty service may be detrimental to the officer's promotion opportunities and even continuation of their military career because it may increase the officer's risk of being twice not selected for promotion to the next higher grade in an environment where mandatory promotion selection boards are selecting only the "best qualified" officers and may not be identifying any officers for selective continuation following two non-selections.  Based on this policy and current procedures, in addition to determining the amount of AFCS, the records of an officer called to active duty are reviewed for qualifications and experience as part of the ADOR determination.

11.  Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1310.01, paragraph 6.4 (Date of Rank for Officers in Transition to and from the Reserve Active-Status List and ADL), prescribes that the Secretary of the Army may change an officer's date of rank to a later date to reflect such officer's qualifications and experience.  This applies in the case of a Reserve officer ordered to active duty who is to be placed on the ADL and who has not been on continuous active duty since his or her original appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-29, paragraph 1-41a, states other than Regular Army commissioned officers in a grade above second lieutenant who were not given entry-grade credit at the time of their most recent original appointment will be placed on the ADL in their current grade and will have an ADOR that precedes the date of placement on the ADL by a period equal to the time served in an active status in their current grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that it would prevent an injustice if Reserve Component officers could receive ADOR credit for IDT service and membership points upon being called to active duty is noted.  However, paragraph 6.4 of DODI 1310.01 provides for changing the ADOR of an officer who is in transition from the Reserve Active-Status List to the ADL to a later date to ensure officers such as the applicant are given the appropriate amount of time to gain the qualifications and experience necessary to be competitive for promotion to the next higher grade.  As such, there is no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant's ADOR determination.

2.  The applicant further indicates that if all of his evaluated time as a major were counted (not only active duty), he would have more than the 30 months of evaluation time as a major noted by the advisory official.  However, the current policy for determining ADOR appears to be in the best interest of both the Army and the officers concerned.  As such, there is an insufficient basis for adjusting his ADOR to account for his ARNG inactive duty time and membership points.

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)                                         AR20120012808



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120012808



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1