MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            22 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074369

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston  		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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:  Promotion to lieutenant colonel.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she completed the Command and General Staff College on 22 May 1992.  She is military occupational specialty qualified in Signal Corps and Military Intelligence.  She has a master of arts degree completed on 31 October 1984 and was promoted to major on 4 December 1991.  She also states that she has held the required positions for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  Advancement in the Minnesota Army National Guard (MNARNG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program for women to lieutenant colonel on the average is 10 to 12 years.  She also states that the MNARNG Infantry Division is mainly made up of males and that additional temporary NGB-AGR positions can be acquired, above their allowed allotment.  She submits a copy of her official military personnel file (fiche), a letter dated 3 January 2002 to The Adjutant General (TAG), State of MN and her Personnel Qualification Record dated 4 June 2002 in support of her request.

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

She was appointed in the MNARNG, Signal Corps, as a second lieutenant effective 25 August 1980.  

She was promoted to first lieutenant effective 24 August 1983 and to captain 23 August 1985.

She was promoted to major effective 4 December 1991.

Based on the required 7 years time in grade her maximum time in grade (MTIG) date for promotion to lieutenant colonel was 3 December 1998.

She was considered and selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1997 Reserve Components Selection Board.  

On 29 July 1998, she elected to delay promotion and continue to serve in the MNARNG AGR program.

On 3 January 2002, she requested a 1-year extension to her current tour in the AGR, with promotion, as a Detailed Inspector General at the Office of the Inspector General, Roseville, MN and promotion to lieutenant colonel.  She stated that her current tour would expire 6 June 2002.  She also stated her AGR retirement date is 21 October 2003.

On 17 January 2002, the MN TAG requested approval of the extension as a Detailed Inspector General for the applicant.  He requested the extension be 

approved to her AGR retirement date of 21 October 2003.  His request did not include promotion to lieutenant colonel for the applicant.  His request stated that the applicant would replace a lieutenant colonel scheduled for retirement in the summer of 2002.

On 20 February 2002, an official of the NGB IG office approved her request for extension and assignment until October 2003.  The approval did not address her request for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

Title 10, United States Code, Section 14311(e)(2), specifies delay because of limitations on officer strength in grade or duties to which assigned under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the promotion of a Reserve officer on the Reserve active-status list who is serving on active duty, or who is on full-time NG duty for administration of the Reserve or the NG, to a grade to which that strength limitations apply shall be delayed if necessary ensure compliance with those strength limitations.  The delay shall expire when the Secretary determines that the delay is no longer required to ensure such compliance.  The section also specifies that promotion shall be delayed while an officer is on duty unless the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the duty assignment of the officer requires a higher grade than the grade currently held by the officer.

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

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion to lieutenant colonel.  She has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now requests.  She did not meet the requirement to be in a lieutenant colonel position for promotion purposes while in the AGR program.

2.  The Board has noted her contention that she qualified for promotion to lieutenant colonel; however, she elected to delay her promotion and to continue to serve in the AGR.  The applicant chose to stay in the MNARNG AGR program without promotion.  She also has not shown that she has not been properly considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

3.  It is also noted that she could have elected removal from the AGR program to accept the promotion to lieutenant colonel; however, she elected not to do so.

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

_JHL____  _BJL___  _RVO___    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074369	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020822	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.