IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  3 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021111 


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 that his date of rank (DOR) to major (MAJ)/O-4 be changed from 10 October 2012 to 5 November 2009.

2.  The applicant states that upon receiving his initial appointment to the Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG) on 5 November 2009, his time in grade (TIG) as a captain (CPT)/O-3 was already five years in the U.S. Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and he was assigned to a MAJ slot.  He could have been appointed as a MAJ in the LAARNG or he could have received a unit vacancy promotion (UVP) shortly after his appointment.  There was an injustice done to him in December 2010 because his file was pulled from the Department of the Army (DA) Selection Board process and he was told that he would get a UVP instead.  However, an error was discovered in his file in that the Federal recognition order was incorrect because it showed him as transferring from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to the LAARNG instead of from the USAFR.  Therefore, he was ineligible for a UVP and he was mandated to go before a DA board.  He as well as the administrative personnel who were assisting him in putting his packet together did not get the information until 4 January 2011, which was after the 21 December 2010 cut-off date for packets to be submitted to the board and one week before the 11 January 2011 board convening date.  As a result, he was not selected by the 2011 AMEDD (Army Medical Department) MAJ board for which he had no control.  He feels as the worst case scenario, he could have been given a UVP in November 2009 based on a 3-6 months time frame for a typical UVP that would put his DOR at the February-May 2010 time frame.

3.  The applicant provides:

* several email messages
* Reserve Order BA-01088, issued by Headquarters, Air Force Reserve Personnel Center, Denver, CO, dated 9 November 2004
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 15 May 2009
* NGB Special Orders Number 232 AR, dated
19 October 2010
* NGB Special Orders Number 281 AR, dated 16 December 2010

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard, the applicant was appointed a commissioned officer in the USAFR.  He was promoted to CPT on 2 November 2004.  He was discharged from the USAFR on 4 November 2009.

2.  On 5 November 2009, he was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer in the LAARNG in the rank of CPT with a DOR of 2 November 2004.  His Federal recognition order, Special Orders Number 232 AR, is dated 19 October 2010.

3.  He was considered but not selected for promotion to MAJ by the fiscal year (FY) 2011 AMEDD Army Reserve Components Mandatory Selection Board.  The reason for his non-selection was that he had not completed the required civilian and/or military education.

4.  He completed the AMEDD Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) on 
5 December 2011.

5.  He was selected from promotion to MAJ by the FY 2012 AMEDD Promotion Board.  He was promoted to MAJ effective 23 August 2012.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB, Personnel Policy Division.  The advisory official stated:

	a.  A request for a UVP was presented by the Soldier's unit in 2010 at which time it was discovered he had never received Federal recognition as an officer in the LAARNG.  Additionally, the Soldier's original orders were incorrect and had to be amended.  Both of the administrative errors had to be corrected prior to applying for a UVP promotion.  The State was able to correct the error; however, 

the Soldier's unit was told he could not apply for a UVP as a result of missing the deadline for UVP promotions set by the FY 2011 MAJ AMEDD board.

	b.  The State had made attempts to prevent the Soldier's records from being reviewed by the AMEDD board as a result of the previously-mentioned administrative errors.  The State contends an agreement was reached by the NGB to satisfy the request; however, the Soldier's record appeared before the
FY 2011 MAJ AMEDD board where he was a non-select for promotion.  The Soldier suggests that as a result of the confusion related to the administrative errors he was not afforded the opportunity to review his board file and update his record.

	c.  The applicant's complaint focuses on administrative errors that prevented him from obtaining a UVP; however, the LAARNG suggests the Soldier would not have been promoted based on not meeting the military education requirements for promotion to MAJ.

	d.  The LAARNG suggests there was never a time that the Solider was eligible for a UVP.  His prior service officer training was not eligible for constructive or equivalent credit; therefore, he had to complete his AMEDD BOLC in order to be eligible for promotion.  The Soldier completed this requirement on 5 December 2011; therefore, he would not have been eligible for his first UVP request in 2010.  His appearance before the DA board would have resulted in a non-selection for not obtaining his military education.

	e.  The deadline for UVP promotions in 2011 was 9 November 2011.  Considering the Soldier graduated from the BOLC on 5 December 2011, he would not have been eligible as a result of not having met his military education requirement.  At that point, the Soldier's promotion packet was presented before the FY 2012 MAJ AMEDD board where he was selected for promotion to MAJ.

	f.  The NGB concurs that the Soldier should not be promoted to MAJ at an earlier time based on a UVP.  He had not met the military education requirements for AMEDD officers identified in pertinent regulations.  Therefore, the NGB does not recommend relief in this matter.

	g.  The LAARNG concurred with their recommendation.

7.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  He did not respond.

8.  He provides email messages that pertain to his removal from the FY 2010 AMEDD MAJ Promotion Board.
9.  Army Regulation 135-155 (ARNG and USAR Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides that to qualify for selection, commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) must complete the military educational requirements in Table 2-2 (Military Education Requirements) not later than the day before the selection board convene date.

10.  Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2, note 8, provides that in order to be promoted from CPT to MAJ, AMEDD officers are required to complete the AMEDD resident Reserve Components BOLC within three years of appointment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his DOR should be adjusted to 5 November 2009 has been carefully considered.  

2.  He contends he could have been appointed as a MAJ in the LAARNG or that he could have received a UVP shortly after his appointment.  He also contends an injustice was done to him because his file was pulled from the FY 2010 AMEDD MAJ Promotion Board.  However, evidence shows he was not educationally qualified for promotion to MAJ until 5 December 2011, the date he completed the AMEDD BOLC.  He was subsequently selected for promotion to MAJ by the FY 2012 AMEDD Promotion Board upon becoming fully qualified for promotion.

3.  His contention and documents provided were noted; however, the fact remains he was not qualified for promotion until completion of the AMEDD BOLC on 5 December 2011.  Therefore, it appears there was no error or injustice in his promotion process.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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)                                         AR20120021111



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021111



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1