IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	 29 October 2015 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150003178 


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 her date of rank (DOR) to captain from 13 August 2014 to 14 July 2012.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  Her previous commander initially wanted to submit her promotion packet the month she joined the unit, but it was later discovered she must complete 1 year of service prior to being promoted.  The commander apologized and stated she would be promoted to captain 1 year later.

	b.  Since that time and after requesting to transfer, she has been treated unfairly.  She was ordered to falsify documents by the company commander and her promotion packet was not submitted for review with no justifiable reason given.

	c.  She has submitted an Inspector General (IG) compliant regarding her unfair treatment and an officer evaluation report (OER).

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request), dated 8 May 2014
* DA Forms 67-9 (OER) covering the periods 30 November 2004-27 April 2005, 14 July 2011-13 July 2012, and 14 July 2012-31 December 2012
* email correspondence, dated 22 June 2011-23 April 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 January 2003 with concurrent order to active duty.  She was promoted to first lieutenant effective 17 July 2004.  She was released from active duty on 27 April 2005 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) from 28 April 2005 13 December 2006.

2.  After a break in service from 14 December 2006 to 13 July 2011, she was appointed as a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard (ARNG) effective 14 July 2011.

3.  She was promoted to captain in the ARNG effective 13 August 2014.

4.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB).  NGB recommends disapproval of the applicant's request.  The opinion stated:

	a.  The applicant was probably eligible for promotion to captain through a unit vacancy on 14 July 2014; however, unit vacancy promotions are at the discretion of an officer's chain of command.

	b.  She was originally commissioned as a second lieutenant on 17 January 2003 and promoted to first lieutenant on 17 July 2004.  She was discharged from active duty on 27 April 2005 and transferred to the USAR.  She was discharged from the USAR on 13 December 2006.  She had a break in service between 14 December 2006 and 13 July 2011.

	c.  She was appointed as a first lieutenant in the ARNG on 14 July 2011 with a DOR of 25 June 2010.  She met the minimum time-in-grade (TIG) requirement for promotion to captain on 25 July 2012 in accordance with paragraph 8-8a of National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions).

	d.  Paragraph 8-7b of National Guard Regulation 600-100 states an ARNG commissioned officer who has been in the Inactive National Guard or in an inactive status will not be considered for Federal recognition to the next higher grade until at least 1 year after the date of return to an active status.

	e.  The earliest the applicant could have been promoted to captain was 14 July 2012.

	f.  She transferred from the Kansas ARNG to the Missouri ARNG on 17 February 2014.

	g.  She was selected for promotion to captain by the Department of the Army (DA) Captain 2014 Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 board after being considered for the first time.  She was promoted to captain with a DOR of 13 August 2014.

	h.  The applicant was probably eligible for a unit vacancy promotion to captain upon meeting the TIG requirements of 2 years, but her unit had the discretion to submit a unit vacancy promotion packet.  The unit is not required to submit a unit vacancy promotion packet simply because an officer is eligible for promotion.

	i.  She was selected for promotion to captain on her first consideration.  She was not in the promotion zone for consideration for the DA FY13 AMEDD promotion selection board.  The promotion zone for the FY13 board for ARNG first lieutenants was 1 September 2008 through 31 August 2009.

	j.  The Kansas ARNG concurs with this advisory opinion.  The NGB Federal Recognition Branch also concurs with this advisory opinion.

5.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  She did not respond.

6.  National Guard Regulation 600-100 prescribes policies and procedures governing the appointment, assignment, temporary Federal recognition, Federal recognition, reassignment, transfers between States, branch transfers, area of concentration designation, utilization, branch detail, attachment, and separation of commissioned officers of the ARNG.

	a.  Paragraph 8-7b states an ARNG commissioned officer who has been in the Inactive National Guard or in an inactive status will not be considered for Federal recognition to the next higher grade until at least 1 year after the date of return to an active status.

	b.  Paragraph 8-8a states the minimum TIG from first lieutenant to captain is 2 years prior to being considered for promotion and Federal recognition.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests adjustment of her DOR to captain from 13 August 2014 to 14 July 2012.

2.  The governing regulation states an ARNG commissioned officer who has been in the Inactive National Guard or in an inactive status will not be considered for Federal recognition to the next higher grade until at least 1 year after the date of return to an active status.

3.  The evidence confirms:

	a.  After a break in service from December 2006 to July 2011, she was appointed as a first lieutenant in the ARNG effective 14 July 2011.

	b.  She met the TIG requirement for promotion to captain on 25 June 2012, but the earliest she could have been promoted was 14 July 2012.

	c.  She was promoted to captain effective 13 August 2014.

4.  The NGB advisory opinion states:

	a.  The applicant was probably eligible for a unit vacancy promotion to captain upon meeting the TIG requirements of 2 years, but her unit had the discretion to submit a unit vacancy promotion packet.

	b.  The unit is not required to submit a unit vacancy promotion packet simply because an officer is eligible for promotion.

	c.  She was selected for promotion to captain on her first consideration.

	d.  She was not in the promotion zone for consideration for the DA FY13 AMEDD promotion selection board.

5.  Based on the foregoing evidence, there is an insufficient basis upon which to grant 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 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)                                         AR20150003178



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150003178



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1