IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  14 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013582 


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 effective date of promotion to captain (CPT) in the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) from 3 July 2013 to 15 December 2012.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He requests to backdate his promotion to CPT.  The delay in promotion is detailed in the supporting document along with the timeline he provides.  His promotion packet was returned to the State twice.  Once, for a board member signing in the wrong place and the next return stated the same reason, but the State was not notified of its return on the electronic system or by any other means.  The OHARNG Promotions Office takes full responsibility (memorandum attached).  However, he believes the National Guard Bureau (NGB) also dropped the ball on this one.

	b.  He believes his promotion date to CPT should be backdated to 15 December 2012 because that is 61 days after his packet was received by NGB.  It took his packet 61 days to go through Federal recognition signing process for his orders to be published.  His issue lies with both the Promotions Office at State and with NGB.  The first time his packet was returned from NGB to State was because a board member signed in the wrong place, which is no fault of his own.  So, the State corrected the error and resent the paperwork the next day.  He tracked his packet's status on GKO (Guard Knowledge Online) and saw everyone else's packet get advanced for signatures, but his remained in the initial status.  The Promotions Office contacted NGB and they stated it had been returned to State, but no one was notified of such an action.

	c.  The promotions office corrected the error and resent the packet again the next day, before Christmas.  He monitored his packet's status on GKO and it didn't move.  After many inquiries by him and the promotions officer at State, NGB still could not give a good reason why his packet will not move from the initial status while others showed up on initial status after his and were being submitted for Federal recognition signatures and being published.  Then, in May, his packet was finally submitted and his orders were published on 10 July 2013 with an effective date of 3 July 2013.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored timelines
* memorandum from the OHARNG Personnel Branch Chief
* OHARNG Orders 289-942 (promotion)
* Soldier information printout
* multiple Federal recognition packet entry printouts
* multiple emails
* promotion memorandum
* NGB Special Orders (SO) Number 169 AR

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the OHARNG and executed the oaths of office on 12 February 2009.

2.  He completed the Financial Management Basic Officer Leader Course from February through May 2010 and he was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) on 12 August 2010. 

3.  The State Federal Recognition Board Proceedings are not available for review with this case.  However, on 15 October 2012, the OHARNG published Orders 289-942 promoting him to CPT effective 25 September 2012.

4.  On 10 July 2013, NGB published SO Number 169 AR extending him Federal recognition for promotion to CPT with an effective date and DOR as 2 July 2013.

5.  The applicant provides multiple emails and/or printouts regarding his promotion packet on GKO.  He also provides a statement, dated 12 March 2013, from the OHARNG Personnel Branch Chief who states:

	a.  He certifies the promotion packet for the applicant was delayed in submission to NGB for publication of permanent Federal recognition as required by National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions).  As a Personnel Branch Chief for the OHARNG, he provides this memorandum to outline the State Headquarters' failure to process the applicant's promotion packet promptly.

	b.  The applicant's promotion packet was received by his office on 13 September 2012 and reviewed by a Federal Recognition Board on 25 September 2012.  For unknown reasons, his office did not publish the State promotion orders until 15 October 2012.  The promotion packet was uploaded to the NGB GKO site the next day on 16 October 2012.

	c.  He was notified by the applicant on 19 December 2012 that the NGB Federal recognition tracker site showed his promotion packet was returned to the State.  He investigated and his office discovered there was an error with the NGB Form 89 (Application for Federal Recognition).  His office corrected the error the day the applicant informed his office and thought there were no further issues with his promotion.

	d.  The applicant inquired again on 6 March 2013 about his concern that his promotion packet had not been assigned to a promotion list yet.  He emailed the NGB analyst that same day asking what the status was but did not receive any response.  On 12 March 2013, he contacted an official at the NGB Federal recognition section to inquire on the applicant's status.  The official informed him the packet was not on a list and had a discrepancy.  The OHARNG never received notice the packet still had the discrepancy and the comment from the NGB Federal recognition site read:  "P-Pres Promo List (Admin team)" which indicates the analyst has released the action to be assigned to a promotion list.

	e.  He recommends the applicant's effective date of rank be adjusted to 23 January 2013 which would be 120 days from his Federal Recognition Board.  There were multiple layers of inadequate administrative processing that caused this significant delay, especially by his office.  The applicant was extremely diligent in tracking his promotion packet and his office failed in the responsibility of processing this packet timely and accurately and officer should not be penalized for this delay.

6.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from NGB, dated 30 August 2013.  NGB recommended partial approval of the applicant's request to promote him effective 9 January 2013 with entitlement to back pay and allowances for the following reasons:

	a.  The applicant was promoted to CPT by the OHARNG on 25 September 2012 and his packet for Federal recognition was submitted to NGB on 16 October 2012.  The orders were not published by the OHARNG until 15 October 2012 and then submitted to NGB on 16 October 2012.  There were delays in his packet being processed both at the State level and at NGB; the delays were no fault of the applicant.

	b.  The Federal recognition section at NGB partially concurs with the Soldier's request.  The following sequence of events affected many officers, including the applicant's promotion packet.  The Director of Military Personnel Management (DMPM) cancelled scroll P02.13 and P03-13 due to a Department of the Army board conflict.  The scrolls were forwarded by the Federal recognition section to the Secretary of Defense on 16 October 2012.  NGB created a new promotion scroll to replace the cancelled scrolls for the Soldiers negatively impacted.  The two scrolls, PL01.13 and PL04-13, were signed on 9 January 2013.  Due to the time frame the Soldier's promotion packet was submitted, consideration should be given that he would have been on one of the scrolls mentioned above, allowing him to be promoted as early as 9 January 2013.  

	c.  The recommendation of NGB is for the Soldier to receive partial administrative relief and his promotion effective date for CPT be adjusted to 9 January 2013.  It is also recommended that the Soldier receive back pay and allowances based on this promotion effective date.  The OHARNG concurs with this recommendation.

7.  On 30 September 2012, the applicant concurred with the advisory opinion by fax.

8.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officer Other than General Officers) prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve Component officers.  It states that for promotion from 1LT to CPT, the minimum number of years in the lower grade is 2 years and the maximum number of years in the lower grade is 5 years.  Paragraph 4-21 states that in no case will the date of rank or effective date of promotion be earlier than the date the board is approved.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant appears to have been considered by a State Federal Recognition Board and was recommended for promotion to CPT in September 2012.  His promotion packet for Federal recognition appears to have been submitted to NGB on 16 October 2012.  The State promotion orders were not published by the OHARNG until 15 October 2012 and then submitted to NGB on 16 October 2012. 

2.  The DMPM cancelled the scroll that contained the applicant's name and several others due to a Department of the Army board conflict.  The scrolls were forwarded by NGB to the Secretary of Defense on 16 October 2012.  NGB created a new promotion scroll to replace the cancelled scrolls for the Soldier's negatively impacted.  The two scrolls were signed on 9 January 2013.  

3.  Given the fact that there were delays in his packet being processed both at the State level and at NGB; that the delays were no fault of the applicant, and due to the timeframe the applicant's promotion packet was submitted, it is reasonable to believe that the applicant's promotion packet would have been on one of the scrolls mentioned above, allowing him to be promoted as early as 9 January 2013.  

4.  However, granting him back pay and allowances would mean changing the date he was scrolled.  Since the scroll is a Department of Defense record and not an Army record, this Board has no authority to change the date he was scrolled.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending NGB SO Number 169 AR, dated 10 July 2013, to show his date of rank as 9 January 2013.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so 

much of the application that pertains to adjusting his effective date of promotion to 15 December 2012 or back pay and allowances.



      ______________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)                                         AR20130013582



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013582



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1