PROCEEDINGS

IN THE CASE OF:    SEE ATTACHED ABCMR LIST 
 (Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act Project – 
 Phase I - Green)
	
BOARD DATE:  25 November 2003

	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 listed named individuals.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	

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

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Applications for Correction of Military Records
	Exhibit B - Promotion Qualification Statements

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicants have exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) for captain.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his DOR should be adjusted to a date that reflects a maximum of 7 combined years service as a lieutenant.

4.  The applicant completed the required military and civilian education for promotion prior to being promoted to captain and prior to his promotion eligibility date, the date he completed the required maximum years of service in grade (MYIG) for promotion purposes.  The required position vacancy, active status, medical qualification, and security clearance have been verified, as noted by appropriate commander and/or personnel manager on the Promotion Qualification Statement provided with the application.

5.  The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) was enacted effective 1 October 1996.  Among many other things, it required that second lieutenants (2LT’s) serve a MYIG of 2 years before promotion to first lieutenant (1LT), and 1LT’s serve a MYIG of 5 years before promotion to captain.  The Reserve Officer Personnel Act in effect prior to ROPMA required completion of 
3 years as a 2LT and 4 years as a 1LT before promotion to captain.

6.  The ROPMA promotion boards for captains were administratively delayed.  The Presidential approvals of the results of the pertinent promotion boards were also administratively delayed.  Based on normal processing, they should have been convened earlier and approved approximately 75 days after the respective convening dates.

7.  On 3 December 1997, the Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) acknowledged that pertinent Army agencies had agreed that the faulty promotion policy for promotion to captain should be revised, and that actions would be initiated for this purpose.  He further stated that affected individuals would be advised they could seek relief from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) which could adjust DOR’s for those who were first-time considered and selected for promotion to captain, after having served more than 7 combined MYIG as a lieutenant.
8.  Current promotion policy also requires completion of the necessary military education (officer basic course), civilian education (baccalaureate degree), and verification of assignment to a captain position as appropriate.
9.  Only officers selected for promotion to captain by Reserve Components Selection Boards after 1 October 1996 on their first-time consideration are eligible for this DOR adjustment consideration.  All of the officers eligible for 

adjustment of their DOR under these provisions were invited to apply to the ABCMR by Departmental promotion officials, and were provided detailed instructions and forms for this purpose.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The ROPMA provisions enacted on 1 October 1996 were never intended to change the statutory requirement then in effect, requiring an individual to serve 7 years, combined, in the ranks of 2LT and 1LT before being promoted to captain.  The applicant was unjustly and unfairly required to serve beyond the required MYIG.

2.  Although the listed individual was selected for promotion to captain the first time he was considered after the enactment of ROPMA, the untimely promotion consideration and delay of his promotion created an injustice that should now be corrected.

3.  The Board notes the applicant is otherwise qualified for promotion to captain with an adjusted DOR, as determined by his appropriate commanders/managers, and has met all other prerequisites for promotion on the date shown on the attached ABCMR List.

4.  In addition to the foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant was prevented from equitable promotion consideration, unlike others in his grade in earlier and later year groups who were considered before and after him, and was unjustly considered well after his eligibility.  He was eligible for promotion consideration prior to his MYIG date so that, if selected, he may have been promoted on or prior to his MYIG date.  He was unjustly required to serve in grade beyond the 7 years required by ROPMA and denied timely consideration.  The further delay for promotion board proceeding preparation and processing for Presidential approval compounded the unfair circumstances.  It is further concluded therefore, that had he been timely considered for promotion prior to his MYIG date, and based on his first-time consideration/selection, a reasonable chance would have resulted that he would have been selected and respectively promoted on or before his MYIG date, and entitled to an earlier promotion, DOR, and pay and allowances.

5.  In view of the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, and as far as the Department of the Army is concerned, the interest of justice would best be served by now correcting his records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned on the attached list be corrected by showing he was promoted to captain with an adjusted DOR as indicated on the attached ABCMR List, and entitled to the pay and allowances in the higher grade on that date.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___ro__  __ym____  ___lm___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087472	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031125	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	131.05	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.