IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018488 


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: 

* correction of his records to show he was promoted to the rank/grade of first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 effective 28 January 2013
* entitlement to all back pay and allowances due as a result of the correction
* reinstatement into the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG)

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 (ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) - Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers (WO) Other Than General Officers) specifies that officers assigned to the USAR Control Group Officer Active Duty Obligor (OADO) and former OADO officers, including Early Commissioning Program (ECP) participants, transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) of the selected Reserve preceding their promotion eligibility date (PED) to first lieutenant (1LT), are not required to meet the educational requirement for promotion to 1LT.  Promotion under these circumstances does not negate the requirement to complete the resident officer basic course (OBC) at a subsequent date.  Officers enrolled in a resident OBC, who are otherwise eligible, will also be considered to have satisfied the education requirement for promotion to 1LT.

	b.  He was improperly denied promotion to 1LT based on an education requirement that does not apply to officers commissioned through the ECP.  He was transferred as a platoon leader and filled a 1LT slot as a company executive officer (XO) from 11 November 2011 according to Order 333-839 and the 2012 Unit Modification Table of Organizational Equipment (MTOE).  He received orders on 1 July 2014 to attend the OBC, which was 28 days before his 36 month time in grade (TIG) as a second lieutenant (2LT).  He was enrolled in the Quartermaster Basic Officer Leaders Course (QMBOLC) for 2 weeks prior to his 36 month TIG mark.  His discharge occurred at 36 months TIG.  At the time, he was completely reinstated and doing well in the course.  After being reinstated on 19 August 2014, he was ordered to return to his home of record due to his discharge.  The action behind his BOLC disenrollment occurred due to an unknown caller from his chain of command contacting the Army Logistics University (ALU).

	c.  He was never recommended for promotion to 1LT.  He was held to a policy published on 31 January 2014 for promotion to 1LT while being promotable 6 months prior to the published date of the GAARNG policy.  His discharge could have been avoided if he was properly tracked and recommended for promotion to 1LT.  The issue existed between him and his company commander.  His commander's intent was to never promote him and let his time expire.  After contacting the State of Georgia on the issue, it seemed his discharge had been highly talked about and the Joint Force Headquarters (JFH), GAARNG, was aware of the issue.  No action could be taken unless his commander agreed or signed off on the action.  The commander's lack of interest to do so has led him down many roads to get the issue fixed outside the unit.  Recently, he contacted the GAARNG Inspector General (IG) and filed a complaint with supporting documents.  No action could be taken because, following his complaint, he was again discharged and his Federal Recognition (FEDREC) was again revoked.  He is enclosing other Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) ECP cases which coincide with his case.  He requests consideration for reinstatement based on the precedence that has been set in previous ABCMR cases.

	d.  He believes his discharge was fraudulent and in error due to command intent and personal interest.  Throughout his 36 months, there was only one National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 78 (Recommendation for Promotion to 1LT/Chief WO Two (CW2)) submitted on behalf of his promotion.  This NGB Form 78, dated 8 July 2014, did not recommend him for 1LT due to his having 36 months TIG.  The form was submitted by Captain (CPT) MJ, who was not his rater, nor his supervisor, and they were not in the same unit.  According to the NGB Form 78, item 2 (Action by Recommending Official (Supervisor/Rater)), the recommending official must be the supervisor or rater of the officer identified. The NGB Form 78 stated [The Applicant] was not recommended for promotion and should be discharged upon his 36 month TIG date of 28 July 2014, due to his disenrollment from the ECP at his school.

	e.  Prior to receiving this NGB Form 78, he was counseled by his company commander to start his resignation packet while attending annual training due to the lack of BOLC availability and failure to be promoted.  CPT KT stated there was nothing he could do and the separation would continue because he was not OBC qualified.  CPT KT also stated a promotion would not occur until OBC was completed.  His obvious intent was to never send him to OBC.  He had to contact NGB in order to get a BOLC date.  The GAARNG denied his many attempts through the Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) prior to the NGB being contacted.  To date, he has spoken to his State G-1, State officer personnel manager (OPM), GAARNG IG, NGB OPM, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), and his company chain of command.  No action could be done without his commander's discretion.  He has also been reinstated twice with his FEDREC and had it withdrawn days later without being notified.

	f.   He should be granted relief as he is providing Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) cases that mirror his situation as follows:

		(1)  AR20110016748, dated 2 October 2012, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested his DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date.  He stated 9 days after he was eligible for promotion he was released from the ECP and transferred to the ARNG where he was considered ineligible for promotion because he had not completed BOLC.  He was granted relief as the NGB advisory official concurred that ECP officers were eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months without attending OBC. 

		(2)  AR20090016782, dated 8 April 2010, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested his DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date.  He contented the ARNG amended his DOR to the 2-year mark from the date he was sworn into the ARNG and not the date he was commissioned in the ECP.  He was granted relief as the NGB advisory official concurred that ECP officers were eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months.

		(3)  AR20090013336, dated 1 April 2010, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested his DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date.  He stated his DOR to 1LT should be adjusted to the date he met the 2-year TIG as he had not been promoted earlier due to not completing OBC.  He was granted relief as the NGB advisory official concurred that ECP officers were eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months.

		(4)  AR20060000139, dated 12 September 2006, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested his DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date.  He was granted relief as the NGB advisory official concurred that ECP officers were eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months.

		(5)  AR20050000707, dated 19 January 2006, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested her DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date.  She stated she believed that she was not promoted earlier because she had not completed OBC.  The Board granted her relief and found through no fault of her own her promotion packet was not prepared in a timely manner and her promotion to 1LT occurred more than 1-year after her eligibility date.

3.  The applicant provides:

* NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated 28 July 2014
* NGB Form 78, dated 8 July 2014
* Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 30 May 2014
* DA Form 597 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Nonscholarship Cadet Contract), dated 16 September 2009
* DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 2 February 2011
* an MTOE for Headquarters (HQ), Infantry Brigade Combat Team (BCT), dated 19 May 2011
* two college transcripts, dated 8 June 2011 and 3 September 2014
* 11 memoranda, dated between 8 July 2011 and 31 January 2014
* DA Form 71 (Oath of Office - Military Personnel), dated 28 July 2011
* 14 orders, dated between 11 August 2011 and 2 September 2014
* DA Form 597-4 (Educational Assistance Program (EAP) for Military Junior College (MJC) Commissioned Officers), dated 17 August 2011
* three memoranda of understanding (MOU), dated 12 September 2011, 11 January 2012, and 14 January 2013
* two DA Forms 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard, dated 26 September 2011 and 6 April 2014
* Cadet Command Form 145-1 (U.S. Army Cadet Command (USACC) Invoice Room and Board Benefit Reimbursement Plan), dated 3 October 2011
* Standard Form (SF) 1034 (Public Voucher for Purchases and Services other than Personal), dated 25 November 2011
* 13 pages of email, dated between 21 March 2012 and 20 June 2014
* Cadet Command Form 131-R (Cadet Action Request), dated 2 April 2012
* an ATRRS screen shot, dated 17 June 2014
* DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 28 June 2014
* self-authored memorandum, dated 30 June 2014
* DD Form 368 (Request for Conditional Release), dated 30 June 2014
* NGB Form 55 (Honorable Discharge Certificate), dated 28 July 2014
* DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report), dated 2 September 2014
* DA Form 137-1 (Unit Clearance Record), dated 2 September 2014
* DA Form 137-2 (Installation Clearance Record), dated 2 September 2014
* DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request), dated 5 September 2014
* DA Form 67-9-1 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER) Support Form), undated
* two pages of an Army Knowledge Online (AKO) screen shot
* six pages of an HRC Soldier Management System (SMS) interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) screen shot listing items in the applicants official military personnel file (OMPF) 
* AR20110016748, dated 2 October 2012
* AR20090016782, dated 8 April 2010
* AR20090013336, dated 1 April 2010
* AR20060000139, dated 12 September 2006
* AR20050000707, dated 19 January 2006

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  As a member of the ROTC Cadet Command, Georgia Military College, the applicant enlisted in the GAARNG Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) on 2 February 2011.  He was discharged from the GAARNG on 27 July 2011.

2.  He provides an MOU between ECP Cadets and the Cadet Command, dated 12 September 2011 (i.e. 12 July 2011), subject:  Statement of Understanding of Responsibilities under Provisions of the ECP, wherein it stated in part:

	a.  I understand that if I am classified as an ECP LT under the provisions of AR 145-1, chapter 6, section II , and this MOU, I am still obligated to meet the following requirements:

* remain enrolled as a full-time student at an institution offering an Army ROTC program until completing a baccalaureate (BA) degree
* complete my BA within 24 calendar months (Any request for extension will be processed immediately through the PMS)
* maintain a minimum semester/quarter cumulative GPA of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale or equivalent (emphasis added)
* meet with the gaining ROTC PMS a minimum of monthly each school year until graduation to provide a status report on academic progress
* participate in professional development requirements and technical proficiency training with the assigned ROTC unit as directed by the gaining PMS to successfully prepare for and complete BOLC II and III
* join an ARNG or USAR unit and active participate in unit training assemblies while completing the 4-year BA
* if I fail to meet the academic, educational, physical, mental, or moral standards of my ROTC contract, including provisions in this MOU, I understand I will be subject to elimination proceedings and may be required to repay any financial assistance received
* I will become an ECP LT on 28 July 2011 and expect to obtain my 4-year degree on June 2013; I intend to complete my degree at North Georgia College and State University

	b.  The applicant signed this MOU as did his PMS.  On 17 August 2011, the gaining PMS at North Georgia College and State University signed the form.

3.  On 28 July 2011, he was appointed as a Reserve 2LT under the provisions of the ECP and assigned to the USAR Control Group OADO.  On 28 July 2011, he was appointed as an ECP Reserve 2LT in the GAARNG and he executed an oath of office on that date.

4.  Orders 215-006, dated 3 August 2011, issued by HQ, USACC, Fort Knox, KY, released him from the USACC, Fort Monroe, VA, and assigned him to the USAR Control Group OADO effective 28 July 2011 as a member of the ROTC ECP to complete his BA.  This orders stated, in part, he was required to: 

* report to the ROTC Detachment, North Georgia College and State University
* remain enrolled as a full-time student at an institution offering an Army ROTC program until completing his BA
* maintain a minimum semester/quarter cumulative GPA of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale or equivalent
* join an ARNG or USAR unit and actively  participate in unit training assemblies while completing the 4-year BA
* complete his BA within a maximum of 36 months after receiving his commission; his anticipated graduation date was July 2013
* recoupment of scholarship financial assistance received applied if he failed to fulfill requirements of the order

5.  He provides a DA Form 597-4, dated 17 August 2011, wherein it stated, in part:

	a.  He was attending North Georgia College and State University, his education commenced on 17 August 2011, his completion date for a degree in Political Science was 9 May 2014. He agreed to meet and maintain the requirements stated in the contractual agreement.

	b.  He agreed to enroll in the necessary courses to successfully complete, within a maximum of 3 academic years, the requirements for the degree stated above.  He agreed to remain a full-time student in good standing at the educational institution stated above.

	c.  He agreed to maintain, at a minimum, a cumulative academic GPA of 2.0.  This GPA must be maintained for each semester or quarter.  He understood and agreed that failure to maintain the minimum academic GPA may subject him to disenrollment from the EAP program.

6.  He was counseled by his PMS on 19 January 2012 and 31 January 2013 for failing to maintain a semester GPA of 2.00 that indicated a lack of academic achievement.

7.  On 3 July 2013, HRC was notified by the Army ROTC Detachment, University of Northern Georgia (UNG), that the applicant had been removed from the ECP based on his n failure to meet the minimum academic requirements of his contract.  Since beginning classes in August 2011 his semester GPA was as follows:

* Fall Semester 2011 -  1.50
* Spring Semester 2012 - 1.00
* Summer Semester 2012 - 2.00
* Fall Semester 2012 - 1.66
* Spring Semester 2013 - 1.66

8.  The applicant provides a transcript, issued 30 August 2013, wherein it shows, in part, he was in good standing and his cumulative/semester GPA were as follows:

* Fall Semester 2011 -  3.00/1.50
* Spring Semester 2012 - 2.00/1.25
* Summer Semester 2012 - 2.50/1.45
* Fall Semester 2012 - 2.00/1.20
* Spring Semester 2013 - 1.31/1.44
* Summer Semester 2013 - 3.00/1.52

9.  On 17 September 2013, by memorandum, the applicant was notified by HRC that he had been released from the ECP for failure to maintain one or more requirements as outlined in Order 215-006, dated 3 August 2011.  A review of the transactions folder of the applicant's SMS file in iPERMS confirms the memorandum was sent to him.

10.  He was ordered to active duty for training and he entered active duty on 13 July 2014.  He was assigned the U. S. Army ALU, Fort Lee, to attend the Quartermaster BOLC.  On 3 September 2014, he was disenrolled from the course for failure to complete his ECP obligation.

11.  He was initially issued an NGB Form 22 that showed he was honorably discharged from the GAARNG on 28 July 2014.  However, the NGB was subsequently notified the applicant was currently on active duty attending BOLC at the ALU, Fort Lee.  This NGB Form 22 was voided and he was retained on active duty to give him time to return to his HOR.  He was honorably discharged on 12 September 2014 in the rank of 2LT.  He completed 3 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable active service during this period of service.

12.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion, dated 11 December 2014, was received from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, NGB.  The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request and stated: 

	a.  Permanent Orders (PO) 266-797, dated 23 September 2011, states the applicant's FEDREC date of appointment to 2LT was 28 July 2011; his eligibility for promotion to 1LT was 28 January 2013 (18 months TIG).

	b.  He was in the ECP at North Georgia College, Dahlonega, GA.  The applicant received and signed an MOU, subject:  Statement of Understanding of Responsibilities under Provision of the ECP between ECP LTs and ROTC Cadet Command, on 29 September 2011, 11 January 2012, and 14 January 2013, which highlighted the minimum grade point average (GPA), full-time student status, completion of degree within 36 months of commissioning, and causes for breach of contract.

		(1)  On 19 January 2012, he received a memorandum, subject:  Counseling for Fall Semester 2011 Academic Performance, for failure to maintain a semester GPA of 2.00 (1.50).

		(2)  On 31 January 2013, he received a memorandum, subject:  Counseling for Fall Semester 2012 Academic Performance, for failure to maintain a semester GPA of 2.00 (1.66).

		(3)  On 3 July 2013, a memorandum, subject:  Removal from ECP for [The Applicant] was forwarded to HRC.

		(4)  On 17 September 2013, the applicant received a memorandum from HRC, subject:  Released from ECP, that stated, "You are released from the ECP for failure to maintain one or more of the requirements outlined in item d of Cadet Command Order 215-006, dated 3 August 2011."

	c.  AR 135-155, paragraph 2-1 states, "An officer in the grade 2LT or a USAR WO in the grade of WO1 will be considered for promotion without review by a selection board.  The officer's records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotions service is completed (table 2-1 or table 2-3)."

	d.  The applicant's request is based on TIG completion in AR 135-155, paragraph 2-5, which states, "To be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade an ARNG of the United States (ARNGUS) or USAR officer must have continuously performed service on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) or the Active Duty List (ADL) (or a combination of both lists) during the  1-year period ending on the convening date of the promotion board, and must meet TIG requirements in table 2-1 or 2-3, as appropriate."  The table displays minimum years in lower grade as 2 years and maximum years in lower grade as 42 months.

	e.  Effective 1 March 2013, Personnel Policy Operational Memorandum (PPOM) Number 13-006, subject:  Corrected Copy:  Promotion from 2LT to 1LT and from WO1 to CW2, bullet 5, states, "The State must consider all 2LTs for promotion and complete a NGB Form 78 at 18 months whether or not the 2LT is qualified and recommended for promotion.  If a 2LT is not recommended for promotion at 18 months, the commander must submit a NGB Form 78 with a request for separation or a request for extension through the State G-1 to the NGB for approval within 36 months.  By statute, no extensions beyond the 36 months are authorized.  This process is required regardless of the reason for the officer being found not qualified for promotion.  The Adjutant General (TAG) may separate the officer rather than request an extension at any time after 18 months.  

		(1)  PPOM Number 13-006, bullet 7, states, "2LTs commissioned through the ECP are eligible for promotion to 1LT at 24 months TIG without the requirement to complete a BOLC in accordance with reference 1c above, table 22, note 1."

		(2)  PPOM Number 13-006, bullet 8, states, "In accordance with [Title] 10 U.S. Code (USC), serction14503, a 2LT Reserve officer shall be discharged at the end of the 18 month period beginning on the date on which the officer is first found not qualified for promotion; generally 36 months from commissioning if not fully qualified by that date.  The officer must have their FEDREC and Reserve of the Army status withdrawn.  The officer may be reappointed by the State as part of the State Militia but is ineligible for FEDREC or Reserve of the Army status if the officer reaches 36 months."

	f.  GAARNG filed a late NGB Form 78 on 8 July 2014.  Although Soldier was eligible for promotion on 28 January 2013, he was released from the ECP on 17 September 2013.  The NGB Form 78 on file outlines, "States will determine through local policy the recommending and approval authorities for their State.  States will also determine who can act in behalf of TAG for blocks 4a - 5d when the officer is not recommended for promotion.  Orders approval authority will not be delegated below the State G-1 and disapproval authority below the Army Chief of Staff."

		(1)  GAARNG memorandum, dated 31 January 2014, subject: Implementation of Statewide Policy Concerning the Promotion of ECP Officers from 2LT to 1LT in the GAARNG, paragraph 3b, states, "ECPs are also eligible for, but not required to be promoted to 1LT when they reach 24 months TIG.  ECPs without a 4-year degree at 24 months are to be discharged from the Army in accordance with AR 600-100 (Army Leadership)" 

		(2)  GAARNG memorandum, dated 31 January 2014, paragraph 3c, states, "LTs without BOLC are non-deployable until they complete their OBC.  ECP LTs are to be discharged from the Army if they haven't completed BOLC within 18 months of successfully achieving their baccalaureate degree.  The entire time period allowed for both completion of both a baccalaureate degree and BOLC cannot exceed a total of 42 months.

	g.  AR 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 1-10c(3), states, "The law established no minimum TIG requirements for consideration for promotion; however, an officer must have at least 18 months TIG to be promoted to 1LT and 2 years TIG to be promoted to CPT.  The TIG requirement for promotion to 1LT has been extended to 2 years by the authority of the Secretary of the Army."

	h.  AR 600-8-29, paragraph 1-13b(1), states, "2LTs found not qualified for promotion by the promotion approval authority (Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) or higher commander, including commanders frocked to LTC) will be retained for 6 months after the officer's original promotion eligibility date.  The promotion review authority (the first officer in the officer's chain of command with general court-martial convening authority) may waive this requirement and direct immediate processing for separation under AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) if the promotion review authority determines that the officer's retention is inconsistent with good order and discipline."

	i.  AR 145-1 (Senior ROTC Program:  Organization, Administration, and Training), paragraph 6-18b, states, "The PMS will develop an academic work plan to ensure the cadet will graduate with a baccalaureate degree at the earliest possible time.  Completion cadets must graduate within 36 months."  The applicant failed to graduate with a BA degree within the specified 36 months from commissioning, making him ineligible to be promoted to the next rank. 

	j.  The NGB FEDREC Branch identifies that the State has the authority to refuse to promote.  According to the State information provided, no further action is required and no relief should be granted.  The GAARNG concurred with the recommendation.

13.  In a response to the advisory opinion, dated 27 January 2015, the applicant stated, in part:

	a.  There are flaws in the advisory opinion and in addition to his previous request for correction of his records to show he was promoted to 1LT effective 28 January 2013 and entitlement to all back pay and allowances due as a result of the correction, he now requests:

		(1)  Hardship pay of $15,000 that resulted from debt, traumatic stress, loans, education, late fees, and transportation costs that have burdened him due to his erroneous discharge.

		(2)  Correction of his OMPF by removing all erroneous documents in his iPERMS file.

		(3)  Reinstatement in the USAR or Active Army Component vice reinstatement into the GAARNG. 

		(4)  A submission in ATRRS for a QMBOLC slot for him in 2015.

	b.  The advisory official did not address that AR 135-155, table 2-2, note 1, states, "Officers assigned to Control Group OADO and former OADO officers (including ECP participants) transferred to Control Group (Annual Training) or the Selected Reserve preceding their promotion eligibility are not required to meet the educational requirement for promotion to 1LT."
	c.  AR 135-155, paragraph 2-8b(5)b(1), states, "An officer delayed to obtain a graduate degree and assigned to the Control Group OADO or under administrative control of the Control Group OADO with concurrent assignment to a Reserve Component (RC) unit will be determined educational qualified for promotion to 1LT or CPT during the period of assignment.  The promotion authority will make this determination as a matter of record.  A letter will be inserted into the officer's record before it is referred to the selection board."

	d.  AR 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), paragraph 3-33e, states, "BOLC B is individual military training (IMT) that prepares a LT for their first assignment and must be completed after commissioning as soon as possible.  Requests for waivers will include a request for course credit per procedures explained in this regulation.  RC must complete BOLC B within 42 months.  AR 135-155 supports [Title] 10 USC, [section] 14503:  Discharge of Officers with less than 6 years of commissioned service or found not qualified for promotion to 1LT or LT junior grade."  This Army regulation is also in accordance with Title 10 USC, section 14503.

	e.  He was commissioned on 28 July 2011 and since then he has attended three annual training events - Brigade Warfighter Exercise and two Exportable Combat Training Capability events.  He also received a GAARNG commendation while managing an annual training event at Camp Ripley, MN.  Throughout all three annual training events, he was passed over for promotion three times despite filling a 1LT slot he obtained for having over 24 months TIG.  His failure to be promoted in the summer 2013 at 24 months TIG and in summer 2014 at 34 months TIG was a decision made by a senseless company commander who lacked knowledge of Army regulations and policies.

	f.  During this time, he could have been promoted if a proper NBG Form 78 was done on his behalf.  None was ever submitted by any of his previous commanders.  All three of his commanders had been informed of Army regulations and Army policy but ignored the written procedures of Army doctrine and continued to make career decisions for him based on word of mouth.  PPOM Number 13-006 specifically states the State must consider all 2LTs for promotion and complete an NGB Form 78 at 18 months whether or not the 2LT is qualified and recommended for promotion.

	g.  If he is correctly aware of Army doctrine, there should be no such thing as a late NGB Form 78.  Not only was the NGB Form 78 submitted on 8 July 2014 submitted 18 to 24 months after it was supposed to be submitted, but it was submitted after he received the QMBOLC dates and a CPT who was not in his direct chain of command submitted the disapproval of his promotion.  On 1 July 2014, he received his QMBOLC dates when he had 35 months TIG from the NGB via the BOLC Career Management after ending an annual training event.  He was slotted to attend the QMBOLC from 13 July 2014 to 31 October 2014, which he could have completed within a 36 to 42 month extended TIG window.

	h.  He was commissioned through the ECP at Georgia Military College and continued his education at the University of North Georgia (UNG).  He signed the MOUs on 20 September 2011, 11 January 2012, and 14 January 2013, which highlights the minimum GPA, full-time status, completion of degree within 36 months of commissioning, breach of contract, and EAP eligibility.

	i.  The advisory official stated on 3 July 2013, HRC received a memorandum for his removal from the ECP and on 17 September 2013, he received a memorandum from HRC that stated he was released from the ECP.  This memorandum was never sent to him, was not viewed by him, and has yet been made available to him or submitted to his iPERMS file.

	j.  As of 17 May 2013, eTranscript 26008287 stated good academic standing, 1.88 total institutional GPA, 2.68 total transfer GPA, and 2.37 overall GPA.  As of 30 August 2013, eTranscript 3054883 stated good academic standing, 2.08 total institutional GPA, 2.68 total transfer GPA, and 2.44 overall GPA.  All GPAs for eTranscript 3054883 were submitted after the completion of a mandatory International Study Aboard program in Peru ending in 1 July 2013.  Two days prior to the alleged 3 July 2013 memorandum, all his GPAs fell into the standard of the UNG ECP MOU.

	k.  All the signed MOUs tracked his progress as a 2LT commissioned through the ECP.  This granted the UNG PMS, Colonel (COL) P____ and COL W_____ their administrative rights listed in AR 145-1.  The MOU written by UNG and signed by him was produced for individuals under a completion cadet status.  AR 145-1, paragraph 6-15(a) states, "…Acceptance of an early commission terminates cadet status…"  Therefore, the provisions listed in the UNG MOU do not apply to LTs commissioned through the ECP.  After commissioning, he did not hold a cadet status.  To his knowledge, the MOU was solely for the acceptance into the EAP offered by the Cadet Command ROTC that helped 2LTs commissioned through the ECP receive extra funding while continuing their education.  The contract is documented under DA Form 597, signed and sent to the Cadet Command ROTC.  If a breach of contract was done, it was done under the eligibility provision of the EAP which he not receive on time or even in the same semester it was applied for. 

	l.  His erroneous discharge has been extremely detrimental to his life and those that depend on him.  He is living in Dahlonega, GA, and studying at the UN
G to finish his BA Degree in International Affairs.  All funding is coming from his pocket.  He missed the deadline for filing for Federal assistance and after 3 years serving, he is not eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) educational benefits because he did not finish his BOLC or serve on active duty over 90 consecutive days.

14.  With his response to the advisory opinion, as new evidence the applicant provides:

	a.  AR20140003312, dated 11 September 2014, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested the removal from his OMPF of three OERs.  The Board denied the request.  It is unclear how this case is related to the applicant's case.

	b.  AR20130001759, dated 29 October 2013, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested his DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date with entitlement to back pay and allowances because his unit incorrectly refused to submit a recommendation for promotion until he finished BOLC.  The Board found his promotion packet was not prepared in a timely manner causing a delay in his promotion and granted him full relief.

	c.  AR20120006565, dated 31 January 2013, wherein the applicant who had been commissioned under the ECP requested his DOR to 1LT be adjusted to an earlier date.  He stated he was promoted after he completed the BOLC and his unit had been unaware he was authorized to be promoted without being MOS qualified.  The Board found his contention had merit and not prepared in a timely manner causing a delay in his promotion and granted him relief.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was commissioned a Reserve officer under the ECP in the GAARNG on 28 July 2011.  As required by the ECP, he was required to maintain a 2.0 GPA each semester or quarter and complete his BA within 24 months with extension to 36 months authorized.

2.  His contention that he was unfairly not recommended for promotion, or promoted, to 1LT after 18 months (minimum) TIG or 24 months (maximum) TIG because he had not completed BOLC is noted; however, he has not submitted any evidence that supports this contention.  The evidence of record and the documents he provided confirmed that from the time he entered the GAARNG as an ECP 2LT on 28 July 2011 through the date of his discharge just over 36 months later on 12 September 2014 he had never maintained the required 2.0 GPA each semester, nor did he ever complete his BA.  It is reasonable to presume that the reason he was not recommended for promotion was because he was not able to meet the educational requirements of his contract and not because he had not attended BOLC.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice.

3.  Although the GAARNG may have been remiss in not submitting an NBG Form 78 when the applicant was not recommended for promotion at 18 and 24 months TIG, this administrative discrepancy does not negate the GAARNG's decision not to promote the applicant.  As stated by the advisory official, each State has the authority to refuse to promote an individual.  In addition, as he had been disenrolled from the ECP on 3 July 2013 for failing to meet the educational requirements, he would then have needed to complete BOLC in order to be eligible for promotion to 1LT.

4.  The applicant also contends once he was enrolled in BOLC on 13 July 2014 he had 42 months to complete BOLC and his BA.  However, the regulation requires an ECP officer to complete their BA within 36 months and then they may have up to 42 months to complete BOLC.  The applicant never completed his BA so the 42 months to complete BOLC did not apply to him. 

5.  While the applicant cites numerous ABCMR cases, none of these cases "mirrors" his situation as he contends.  In each of the cases he cited, the applicant had been commissioned in the ECP, had been found qualified to be promoted to 1LT, and each held the rank of 1LT.  The Board only adjusted the DOR to show they had been promoted when they reached 24 months TIG, the Board did not direct a promotion to 1LT for an officer that had not been promoted to that rank. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20140018488





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018488



16


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1