MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071419

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration 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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, a correction to his first lieutenant (1LT) date of rank (DOR).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he met the minimum years in grade requirement for promotion from second lieutenant (2LT) to 1LT, which was two years, on 31 May 1998.  He states that he was assigned to the Indiana Army National Guard (ARNG) on 9 July 1997, transferred to the Missouri ARNG on 
1 July 1999, and on 20 December 2000, he was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) of the United States Army Reserve (USAR), where he now serves. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 10 May 1996, the applicant was commissioned a Reserve Officer, and he was appointed a 2LT in the USAR.  The applicant was promoted to 1LT on 1 July 1999, while serving in the ARNG.  He remained in the ARNG until being honorably separated on 30 December 2001.  At that time, he was transferred to the IRR of the USAR, where he now serves.

In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB), dated 21 October 2002.  It states that the applicant was commissioned a 2LT on 10 May 1996, and by regulation was eligible for promotion to 1LT on 10 May 1998, as he indicated in his application.  However, promotion from 2LT to 1LT is not automatic.  An officer must be recommended, the promotion packet processed and approved up through the chain of command, and the promotion approved by the final promotion authority, which in this case was the Chief, NGB.  

The NGB opinion further indicated that in the applicant’s case, the required promotion recommendation was made and his promotion packet processed well after he was eligible for promotion to 1LT, but based on his promotion date of 
1 July 1999, he was still promoted well within the maximum time in grade requirements of the regulation.  Finally, it stated that the applicant’s promotion was accomplished within the guidelines of the applicable regulations and does not appear to be in error or an injustice to the applicant.  As a result, the application should not be approved.  

On 15 November 2002, a copy of the NGB advisory opinion was provided to the applicant in order to provide him the opportunity to response and/or submit a rebuttal.  To date, he has failed to reply.  

Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the ARNG and the USAR.  It states, in pertinent part, that ARNG officers in the grade of 2LT 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 promotion service is completed as outlined in Table 2-1.  Table 2-1 provides time in grade requirements and indicates, in pertinent part, that minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to 1LT is 2 years and the maximum time in grade requirement is 42 months.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the contention that his 1LT DOR should be adjusted, but it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, the records of officers in the rank of 2LT will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date regulatory time in grade requirements are met.  The time in grade restraints outlined in the regulation for promotion to 1LT are listed as 2 years minimum time in grade and 42 maximum time in grade.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to 1LT within the time in grade restraints outlined in the regulation.  As pointed out in the NGB advisory opinion, although the applicant was not promoted on the date he met the minimum time in grade requirement, he was promoted well before reaching the maximum time in grade constraint.  Therefore, lacking evidence to show that the applicant’s promotion was unjustly delayed by the chain of command or due to some administrative error, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.  

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RWA__  __KYF___  __BPI__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071419	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  21	102.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.