RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:  4 December 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087569

	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.  

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

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	

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

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests adjustment to his date of rank for first lieutenant from 9 June 1997 to 14 May 1996.

2.  The applicant states that his consideration for promotion to first lieutenant was delayed one-year based on the implementation of the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA).  On the effective date of ROPMA, 1 October 1996, he had completed 2 years and 4 1/2 months time in grade as a second lieutenant. Based on ROPMA he was promotable to first lieutenant, but his command did not submit his paperwork until he had complete 3 years TIG as a second lieutenant.  He also states that he should have been grandfathered in under the guidelines of ROPMA and promoted to first lieutenant with an effective date of 14 May 1996.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his oath of office, his promotion orders for first lieutenant, his personnel qualification record, his Bachelor of Science degree, and his service school academic evaluation report in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant’s military records show he was appointed in the Reserve as a second lieutenant effective 13 May 1994.  Based on the required 3 years TIG, his maximum TIG for promotion to first lieutenant was 14 May 1997.

2.  The applicant was promoted to first lieutenant effective 9 June 1997.

3.  Army Regulation 135-155, prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that Reserve officers appointed prior to 1 October 1996 in the grade of second lieutenant will be considered for promotion after serving 3 years time in grade without review by a selection board.  This will be determined far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed.  The regulation also shows that 2 years of time in grade is required on 1 October 1996.

4.  The ROPMA, a public law enacted by Congress on 5 October 1994, prescribes the policies and procedures to consolidate and modernize the laws that govern Reserve component officers.  The law was implemented on 1 October 1996.  ROPMA provides that Reserve officers appointed on or after 1 October 1996 in the grade of second lieutenant will be considered for promotion to first lieutenant after serving 2 years time in grade without review by a selection board.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is not entitled to correction to his date of rank for first lieutenant.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been grandfathered in under the guidelines of ROPMA and promoted to first lieutenant upon completion of two years TIG has been noted.  However, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant effective 13 May 1996 prior to the implementation of ROPMA, which became effective 1 October 1996.  Promotion to first lieutenant prior to ROPMA required completion of 3 years TIG in the lower grade.  

3.  Under ROPMA an officer appointed as a second lieutenant on or after 1 October 1996 would be eligible for promotion to first lieutenant upon completion of 2 years TIG, officers appointed prior to that date were not granddfathered under the guidelines of ROPMA for entitlement to promotion to first lieutenant within 2 years.

4.  The applicant’s date of rank for first lieutenant of 9 June 1997 was proper and he has not shown otherwise.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wm___  __kl___  ___ar___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		___Walter T. Morrison___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087569	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	131.05	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.