IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130008232 


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 lieutenant colonel (O-5).

2.  The applicant states:

* His DOR to O-5 should reflect the original date he was assigned to his current position
* He was assigned to paragraph 012A and line 07 on 12 October 2012
* His current DOR reflects an erroneous date of assignment of 17 January 2013
* The Unit Manning Report (UMR) should have reflected the assignment date of his orders, which were signed by his company commander indicating acceptance of his transfer to the Reserve
* He was moved out of the paragraph and line from 12 October 2012 until he was placed back in the position on 17 January 2013

3.  The applicant provides:

* Florida National Guard Orders 299-066, dated 25 October 2012
* Florida National Guard Orders 299-178, dated 25 October 2012
* Florida National Guard Orders 298-003, dated 24 October 2012
* DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment), dated 29 August 2012
* UMR, dated 19 April 2013
* U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Orders B-02-301103
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior Air Force Reserve service, the applicant accepted an appointment in the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG) on 17 September 2002, in the rank of captain.  

2.  He was separated from the SCARNG on 22 September 2004, upon becoming a member of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  He was promoted to major on 15 March 2006.

3.  The applicant accepted an appointment in the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) on 10 June 2008, in the rank of major.

4.  On 30 August 2011, the applicant was notified he had been selected for promotion under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-155 by a board adjourning on 3 May 2011.  He was notified that the promotion eligibility date to O-5 would be either 12 March 2013, the date Federal Recognition was extended in the higher grade, or the date following the date Federal Recognition is terminated in his current Reserve grade.

5.  On 11 October 2012, the applicant was separated from the ARNG and transferred to a USAR troop program unit.

6.  HRC Orders B-02-301103 were published on 27 February 2013, promoting the applicant to O-5 with a DOR of 17 January 2013.

7.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from HRC, Chief, Officer Promotion Management.  It states:

	a.  The applicant's assertion that his date of rank to O-5 is administratively incorrect and that he should have been promoted effective 12 October 2012, the date he was assigned to his current position, is without merit.

	b.  The effective date of the applicant's promotion to O-5 was based upon being in an authorized higher position no earlier than the approval date of his respective board in accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-21 and as substantiated by the unit provided-manning documentation.  The provided UMR clearly shows he was only assigned to the unit in a USAR capability on 
2 January 2013 and assigned to the higher-graded position effective 17 January 2013.  The appropriate unit commander assigned the applicant to the respective higher-graded position at this timeframe apparently based upon the mission, availability, and manning requirements set forth in Army Regulation 140-10.

	c.  It is true that the applicant had a request for Reserve Component assignment or attachment as documented by the DA Form 4651, dated 
12 October 2012, when he was requesting to transition from the ARNG to the USAR.  However, this is only an administrative request and not an official manning document.

	d.  If proof of assignment to a higher position (i.e., O-5) is provided with substantiated information, UMR and new 56R, for the requested period (12 October 2012), then the applicant would be eligible to be promoted in accordance with the aforementioned requirements.  Note, the UMR is required because Regional Level Application Software (RLAS) only provides a snapshot of current assignment information and associated effective date, whereas the UMR provides historical-based information from a past snapshot in time.

8.  By letter dated 10 June 2013, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for his information and/or possible rebuttal.  No response has been received.

9.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), paragraph 4-21 covers the effective dates of promotion.  It states that unit officers selected by a mandatory board will have a promotion date and effective date no earlier than the date the board is approved or the date of Senate confirmation (if required), provided they are assigned to a position in the higher grade.  When the board approval or, if required, Senate confirmation is before assignment to the position in the higher grade, the effective date and the date of promotion will be the date of assignment to the higher graded position.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant was promoted to O-5 with a DOR of 17 January 2013.  He was promoted to O-5 on the date he was assigned to a higher-graded position.  According to the applicable regulation, unit officers selected by a mandatory board will have a promotion date and effective date no earlier than the date the board is approved or the date of Senate confirmation, provided they are assigned to a position in the higher grade.

3.  The applicant was assigned a DOR in accordance with the applicable regulation.

4.  If the applicant can provide the documents requested by HRC that will confirm he was in an O-5 position on 12 October 2012, HRC can adjust his DOR.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied at this time.


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)                                         AR20130008232



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130008232



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1