RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         21 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050009971


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert D. Morig               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, a change in his promotion date to
major.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he believes his date of rank (DOR)
should be adjusted to the date of selection.  He claims the reason for the
delay in his promotion was a suspension of favorable personnel actions
(FLAG) action that had erroneously been submitted by his unit based on his
failing to show up for an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  He claims
that he took the APFT at his unit of attachment, but results were not
forwarded to his unit of assignment.  He claims this was clearly a clerical
error and was through no fault of his own.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Letter of Attachment; APFT Score Card; Reserve Component
Selection Board (RCSB) Letter; and Career Management Officer Electronic
Mail (e-mail) Message.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that at the time of his application to the
Board, he was serving in an active status in the United States Army Reserve
(USAR).

2.  On 19 April 2005, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components
(RC), Human Resources Command (HRC)-St. Louis, notified the applicant that
he had been selected for promotion to major and that he was eligible for
promotion on
16 August 2005.  The notification memorandum stipulated that in order to be
promoted, he must meet the regulatory prerequisites.

3.  On 16 June 2005, orders were published promoting the applicant to major
with an effective date and date of rank of 13 June 2005.

4.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the HRC-St. Louis Chief, Promotions Branch, RC.  This
official confirms the applicant was selected for promotion to major by the
2005 RCSB, which was approved by the President on 24 March 2005, and
released on
19 April 2005.  He further confirms that at the time of the release of this
promotion list, the applicant was under a FLAG action for an invalid
physical and security clearance.  This FLAG action was removed on 13 June
2005, and the applicant was promoted effective and with a date of rank of
this date.

5.  This HRC RC promotion official further indicates that in order for the
applicant to receive an earlier date of rank, his unit that initiated the
FLAG would have to do a corrected document reflecting that the FLAG was
removed earlier.  He further indicates that the applicant was notified of
this telephonically and advised to contact his unit to ensure the FLAG was
removed on the earliest possible date.

6.  On 23 November 2005, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC
advisory opinion in order to have an opportunity to respond to its
contents.  To date, he has failed to reply.

7.  The applicant provides orders showing that he was attached to a unit in
Houston, Texas on 21 December 2001, and an APFT score card that shows he
passed the APFT on 16 April 2005.

8.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officer and Warrant
Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes the policy and procedures
used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than
commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United
States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the U.S.
Army Reserve (USAR).

9.  Paragraph 4-11 of the officer promotions regulation states, in
pertinent part, that an officer who has been recommended for promotion to
the next higher grade must be medically qualified and must have undergone a
favorable security screening in order to be promoted.  It further
stipulates that an officer's promotion is automatically delayed when the
officer is under a FLAG action.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was erroneously placed under a FLAG
action because his parent unit was not informed that he had successfully
passed the APFT at his attached unit, and the supporting documentation he
submitted was carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record
appears to show the applicant's promotion was delayed for more than one
reason.  The delay was based on his failure to meet the physical and
security prerequisites for promotion on his promotion eligibility date.
Thus, even if the APFT he submitted was valid, this does not appear to be
the sole reason for his promotion delay.

2.  The record also shows that HRC-St. Louis promotion officials advised
the applicant to contact his unit to determine if the FLAG action that
delayed his promotion was removed at the earliest possible date.  There is
no indication he
complied with these instructions.  Further, he failed to provide rebuttal
arguments to the HRC-St. Louis advisory opinion when he was given the
opportunity to do so.

3.  By regulation, a member must be medically qualified and must have
undergone a favorable security screening in order to be promoted.  The
evidence of record confirms the applicant's promotion was delayed because
he had not completed the physical and security requirements necessary for
promotion.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
applicant's promotion was properly delayed because he failed to meet the
prerequisites for promotion on his original promotion eligibility date.
Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting
the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JNS__  ___YM__  __RDM__  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.





                                  _____John N. Slone_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050009971                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/03/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  310  |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]