BOARD DATE: 3 September 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000930
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 her date of rank for promotion to the rank of major be changed to 2 November 2009, that she be paid all back pay and allowances and that she be considered in the primary zone for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel.
2. The applicant states that during the release of the 2009 major board results she was assigned to a unit that did not have Active Guard Reserve (AGR) major positions on the unit manning roster (UMR), but she was assigned to a valid major position on 2 November 2009. She goes on to state that she received promotion orders on 3 June 2010 with a date of rank (DOR) of 16 March 2010. She also states that officials at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) explained that the reason for the delay in her promotion was due to her orders not being posted to her Official Military Personnel File.
3. The applicant provides her promotion orders to the rank of major, her assignment orders and a copy of the UMR.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was serving as a United States Army Reserve (USAR) first lieutenant in the AGR Program when she was promoted to the rank of captain on 17 March 2003.
2. She was serving in the AGR program in the rank of captain when she was promoted to the rank of major on 16 March 2010.
3. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from HRC which opines that the applicant was promoted to the rank of major after obtaining the maximum time in grade as a captain and further noted that the orders assigning her to a majors position were revoked after her request for high school stabilization was approved. The applicant was then double slotted to a position occupied by another major. Accordingly, she could not be promoted sooner due to being double slotted. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date no response has been received by the staff of the Board.
4. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the Army National Guard and commissioned and warrant officers of the U.S. Army Reserve. Table 2-1 of this regulation provides that the maximum years required in the lower grade for promotion to the rank of major is 7 years.
5. That regulation also provides that AGR officers selected by a mandatory board will be promoted provided they are assigned to a position in the higher grade. An officer selected for promotion who is not assigned to a position in the higher grade will be promoted on the date assigned to a higher graded position or the date after release from AGR status. The date of rank will be the date the officer attained maximum time in grade or the date assigned to a higher graded position, whichever is earlier.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contention that she should have been promoted to the rank of major on 2 November 2009 instead of 16 March 2010 has been noted and appears to lack merit.
2. In order to be promoted prior to reaching the maximum time in grade point, the individual had to be selected by a promotion selection board and assigned to a higher graded position. In the applicants case, her assignment to a higher grade position was revoked and she was dual slotted along with another major who already occupied the position.
3. Accordingly, she was properly promoted when she reached her maximum time in grade in the rank of captain, which in this case was 16 March 2010.
4. Therefore, since the applicant has failed to show that an error or injustice exists in her case, there appears to be no basis for granting her request.
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) AR20150000930
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000930
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020993
The applicant requests correction of her date of rank (DOR) to major from 16 March 2010 to 10 September 2009. c. She received promotion orders on 3 June 2010 with a DOR of 16 March 2010. d. Her records are in error/unjust because she was not promoted upon signing into her new unit at Fort Belvoir, VA. 3. Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-9c, states a USAR AGR officer considered and selected by a mandatory promotion board but who cannot be promoted due to strength and/or position...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013642
The 814th AG Company Unit Manning Report prepared on 5 November 2008 shows she was assigned to the position of Chief Human Resources Sergeant (position number 0020) in the rank of 1SG in MOS 42A5O on 22 August 2007. b. SFC S____ of the USAR 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (ESC) emailed several individuals, including the applicant indicating the applicant had been recommended [i.e., selected] for promotion to SGM against a position at her unit, the 814th AG Company. c. 1SG B____ [the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009470
The applicant provided three UMRs, dated 2 June 2010, 24 August 2010, and 16 July 2011, which show: a. MSG CJ also stated that the applicant must complete the attached counseling and, by 27 May 2012, be reassigned to a valid position that meets COE and grade requirements or be subject to involuntary transfer to another unit, to the IRR, or elect retirement. (i) As a COE (MILTECH 365th) and in order to meet the senior grade overstrength guidance, she took a reduction in rank from SGM/E-9 to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021131
Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). He was promoted with a date of rank of 18 August 2009 and an effective date of 19 August 2009. e. In accordance with information received from LTC E__ S__, who was Chief, DA Secretariat-STL during the board process, the Officer Management Branch had three valid higher graded positions they could have used to assign the applicant to when publishing his assignment orders. However, evidence indicates that once it was known he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008410
c. in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12011 and 12012, the ARNG is allowed a limited number of AGR Soldiers to serve in the controlled grades of E-8, E-9, O-4 (major), O-5, and O-6 (colonel). Nowhere does it state that the possible removal of the Soldier from the AGR program is an exception to the "shall promote" clause in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14304. Paragraph 8-6d of this regulation states an AGR controlled grade authorization (Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12011) must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015004C071029
The applicant states, in effect, that he was selected for promotion to LTC and his name was on the 26 January 2004 Promotion List. As a result, a promotion memorandum on the applicant was issued on 23 April 2004, which assigned the applicant a DOR of 26 January 2004, the date the President approved the Board. As a result, a corrected promotion memorandum was issued on 26 April 2006, showing the applicant's DOR as 21 April 2004, the date he assumed the position in the higher grade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013483
The State of Texas was over strength on AGR O-5 positions and the State did not get their control grade O-5 positions corrected until late 2010. In her response to the NGB advisory opinion, she suggested the Board request information from the Texas AGR services pertaining to AGR MAJs and LTCs promotions; however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decides cases on the evidence of record. The evidence shows that she was eligible for promotion to LTC on 4 October 2008;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027948
In a memorandum for MILPO's, dated 1 September 2004, the NGB stated that the mobilization promotion policy applied to ARNG officers recommended for promotion to the grades of captain through LTC who are mobilized under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 12301(a), 12302 and 12304. The NGB stated there was no AGR LTC position available for him to be promoted into. Evidence indicates the applicant later resigned from the AGR program, accepted an ADOS position, and was promoted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082012C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction to his date of rank for lieutenant colonel from 7 June to 28 February 2002. He was issued a promotion memorandum with a promotion effective date and date of rank for lieutenant colonel of 7 June 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000585C080213
Records at the AGR Branch, USAHRC STL show that the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the 2001, 2002, and 2003 AGR E-7 promotion boards. Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), in effect at the time, paragraph 1-8e, stated that, when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the Soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the Soldier to retain pay and...