SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:  	12 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038527

	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.  A quorum was present during the further consideration and deliberation.  The findings appearing in proceedings dated 8 September 1999 were affirmed.  The following additional findings, conclusions, and recommendation were adopted by the Board.

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

	The Board convened at the call of the Director on the above date to reconsider the conclusions and recommendation appearing in proceedings dated 8 September 1999.

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The applicant and counsel, if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following additional evidence:

	Exhibit C:  Application for Correction of Military Record, dated 
12 February 2000.

	Exhibit D:  Memorandum, dated 19 May 2000, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components (RC), Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM).  

	Exhibit E:  Memorandum, dated 10 June 2000, Military Personnel Actions Branch, ARPERSCOM.

	Exhibit F:  Memorandum, dated 21 September 2000, applicant rebuttal of Exhibit E.  

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:

9.  On 12 February 2000, the applicant amended her application (Exhibit C) to request that the correction of her First Lieutenant (1LT) date of rank (DOR) to 
3 April 1998, as provided for in the enclosed Record of Proceedings, issued by this Board on 8 September 1999, be further corrected to show that her DOR to 1LT as 3 April 1997.  

10.  The applicant bases her reconsideration request on the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) change to the time in grade (TIG) requirement for RC promotions from Second Lieutenant (2LT) to 1LT.  This changed the TIG requirement from 3 to 2 years and it applied to all officers appointed in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on or after 1 October 1996. 

11.  On 19 May 2000, the Chief of RC promotions at ARPERSCOM provided a memorandum (Exhibit D) that indicated, in effect, that the applicant’s interpretation of ROPMA changes were correct and her DOR to 1LT should have been changed to 3 April 1997 because she was originally appointed in the USAR on 15 November 1996.  This finding was based on ROPMA provisions that had changed the TIG requirements for RC promotions from 2LT to 1LT, from 3 to 
2 years, for all RC officers appointed on or after 1 October 1996.  

12.  The Promotions Branch Chief further indicated that in the applicant’s case the DOR corrective action taken by this Board inadvertently applied the 3 year TIG rule applicable prior to the enactment of the ROPMA.  This was the result of applying the pre-ROPMA 3-year TIG rule that applied to RC personnel appointed prior to 1 October 1996.  The constructive credit granted the applicant should not have impacted her original appointment date of 15 November 1996, which was subsequent to the ROPMA mandated TIG change to 2 years.  

13.  The RC Promotions Chief finally determined, in the applicant’s case, that the appropriate DOR change could be administratively remedied.  The case was forwarded to the ARPERSCOM Personnel Actions Branch for publication of a corrected promotion order to reflect the applicant’s 1LT DOR as 3 April 1997.  

14.  In response to the request of the Chief of RC Promotions to publish a corrected promotion order, a Personnel Management NCO of the ARPERSCOM Personnel Actions Branch provided a memorandum (Exhibit E) to this Board.  It indicated, in effect, that the applicant was ineligible for promotion until 30 July 1998, which was when she was issued an interim Secret security clearance, which was a prerequisite for promotion.  

15.  Exhibit E further indicates, in effect, that the ROPMA established procedures for determining the eligibility of RC officers for promotion from 2LT to 1LT includes that their records be screened to determine their promotion eligibility and promoting them if they meet all the qualifications.  The policy further establishes that the promotion effective date and DOR will be the date the officer meets all qualifications for promotion.  

16.  The Personnel Management NCO also states, in effect, that the applicant did not meet the promotion qualifications on 3 April 1997, and she was not eligible for promotion until she was issued an interim Secret security clearance on 
30 July 1998, which was the date used as her promotion effective date and her 1LT DOR.  Finally, this memorandum indicates that applicant’s DOR should not precede the date she attained promotion eligibility under ROPMA established prerequisites.  This was the date she was granted an interim Secret security clearance, 30 July 1998, and thus, her DOR should not be adjusted to 3 April 1997. 

17.  On 21 September 2000, the applicant submitted a memorandum of rebuttal (Exhibit F) to Exhibit E.  In this rebuttal, she stated, in effect, that her not being issued a Secret security clearance in the proper time frame was not the result of her neglect and was through no fault of her own.  She claims to have researched the security clearance issue and discovered that her unit had administrative difficulties in processing her clearance packet and she provides supporting documents to verify this claim.  

18.  Enclosed with her rebuttal is a statement from the Supervisory Staff Administrator of her unit.  This confirms that the delay in the applicant receiving her interim Secret security clearance had nothing to do with her failing to provide the necessary information or with the unit failing to submit the packet at the proper time.  The delay is directly attributed to the agency responsible for processing and issuing security clearances, the East Security Team, moving from Fort Meade, Maryland to Fort McPherson, Georgia.  This transfer in the responsibility for security clearance processing resulted in security clearances not being processed and issued during the time period in question. 

19.  Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Army) prescribes policy and procedures for the appointment of commissioned and warrant officers in the USAR.  Paragraph 1-6h provides the security requirements for appointment and states, in pertinent part, that health professionals, chaplains, and attorneys may be commissioned in the RC prior to completion of a National Agency Check (NAC) provided that a NAC is initiated at the time an application for a commission is submitted.

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES: 

4.  In its 8 September 1999 decision in this case, the Board’s intent was to make the applicant’s record as administratively correct as it should properly have been at the time.  The corrective actions taken were the result of granting the applicant 1 year, 7 months, and 11 days of constructive credit in conjunction with her appointment as a USAR officer on 15 November 1996.

5.  In its original decision, the Board failed to recognize that in granting the constructive credit that changed the applicant’s 2LT DOR to 4 April 1995, the applicant’s appointment date of 15 November 1996 was not impacted.  The Board incorrectly applied the pre-ROPMA 3-year TIG rule, which was applicable for members appointed prior to 1 October 1996, and as a result granted her relief by correcting her 1LT DOR to read 3 April 1998. 

6.  The ROPMA was implemented on 1 October 1996 and the TIG requirement for promotion to 1LT was changed from 3 to 2 years for members appointed on or after that date.  Therefore, given the applicant’s actual appointment date was 15 November 1996, her 1LT DOR should have been corrected to 3 April 1997, based on the post ROPMA 2-year TIG requirement.

7.  The Board noted and considered the position taken by the ARPERSCOM Personnel Management NCO in Exhibit E.  However, it determined that the failure to meet the regulatory requirement to initiate a NAC and to provide the applicant an interim Secret security clearance prior to her attaining promotion eligibility was the result of administrative error and was through no fault of the applicant.  

8.  Further, based on the administrative error outlined above and the fact that the applicant was subsequently granted the required interim Secret security clearance, the Board concludes that even though she was not holding a formal security clearance at the time, she was fully eligible to hold the interim Secret security clearance that was subsequently granted.

9.  Therefore, notwithstanding the objections raised in Exhibit E, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to grant the applicant a 1LT DOR of 3 April 1997, as an exception to policy, based on her having met the 2-year TIG requirement established by the ROPMA and on her being fully eligible to hold an interim Secret security clearance on the date she attained promotion eligibility.

10.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

3.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the Board’s recommendation appearing in the proceedings, dated 8 September 1999, to show that the individual concerned was awarded an interim Secret security clearance on 2 April 1997 and her 1LT DOR is 3 April 1997.

BOARD VOTE:

__hbo___  ___fe___  ___lem __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______Fred Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038527	
SUFFIX		
RECON	1999/09/08	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  21	102.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.