MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:           21 October 2003    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087476

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones		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:  That his date of rank as first lieutenant be corrected to 22 September 2001.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was denied his correct date of rank because no security clearance was on file for him as of his promotion eligibility date.  This lack of clearance was due to no fault of his own.  His unit failed to submit a clearance request for him immediately upon his appointment as an officer as required.  He provides his DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel), his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), and U. S. Total Army Personnel Command memorandum dated 25 June 2000 as supporting evidence.

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

He was appointed a second lieutenant in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR), Army Medical Specialist Corps, on 25 June 2000.  He was given 9 months and 3 days of constructive credit (i.e., considered to have a second lieutenant date of rank of 22 September 1999).  On his DA Form 4572-R (Statement of Understanding for Appointment as a Commissioned Officer), the applicant acknowledged that he understood his appointment as a commissioned officer in the USAR may be/was being accomplished prior to issuance of a secret security clearance.

The applicant completed the resident phase of the Army Medical Department Officer Basic course on 15 June 2001.  

A Memorandum for Record from the Chief, Military Personnel Actions Branch,   U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) dated 1 February 2002 indicated the applicant did not meet all requirements for promotion at the time of his promotion eligibility date of 21 September 2001 and he was promoted when all requirements were met (i.e., 1 February 2002).  By memorandum dated 22 February 2002, AR-PERSCOM notified the applicant that he had been promoted to first lieutenant effective 1 February 2002.  

Apparently, AR-PERSCOM discovered the applicant met all requirements for promotion as of 11 December 2001 as, by a corrected copy memorandum dated 8 April 2003, AR-PERSCOM notified the applicant he had been promoted to first lieutenant effective 11 December 2001.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Military Personnel Actions Branch, AR-PERSCOM.  That office noted that the applicant did not meet promotion qualifications due to not having a valid security clearance until 11 December 2001.  They determined the effective date of his promotion in accordance with Army Regulation 155-135.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.

Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), paragraph 4-16 states that a qualified second lieutenant will not be promoted before the date of completion of 2 years of promotion service.  Paragraph 4-18 states that the Secretary of the Army is authorized to determine whether an officer was unqualified for promotion during any part of an involuntary delay of promotion and may determine whether an adjustment must be made to an officer's date of rank and effective date of promotion.

Army Regulation 135-100 (Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Army), paragraph 1-6h states that applicants will have as a minimum a secret security clearance prior to being tendered an appointment.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Development and Career Management), paragraph 3-12a, states that officers, in many respects, are ultimately their own career managers.  While Army requirements dictate the final outcome of all career development actions, in every case the officer can participate in such decisions.  The key is to be involved in career development by making informed and logical decisions and acting on them.  One important element of an officer's involvement is the accurate reflection of capabilities in the official personnel management files maintained by Headquarters, Department of the Army.  The Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), the DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief) (ORB), and the career management individual file (CMIF) contain the data from which important career development decisions are made for selection, advancement, assignments, and retention.  Officers should review, update, and maintain these records throughout their careers.  

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, it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  Although the applicant may have been appointed as a commissioned officer prior to issuance of a secret security clearance; he should have been aware from his appointment application process that he was required to have a secret security clearance as a commissioned officer.  He should have been aware, from reviewing his records, that he did not have a security clearance.
3.  An officer is ultimately his own career manager.  Although his unit may have failed to submit a clearance request for him immediately upon his appointment; there is no evidence to show the applicant sought to have this deficiency corrected in a timely manner.

4.  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

__mhm___  __wdp___  __fcj___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087476	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031021	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	131.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.