RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  24 February 2004
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003091210

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 correction to his date of rank for lieutenant colonel (LTC) from 29 April 2003 to 1 July 2001.

2.  The applicant states that his promotion letter date of rank is not consistent with the promotion board selection letter.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his promotion board selection letter and promotion letter.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant's military records show that he was appointed in the Reserve, Chaplain Corps, as a second lieutenant effective 17 March 1974.

2.  The applicant entered on active duty effective 14 January 1985 and was separated from active duty effective 1 July 1994 by reason of non-selection for permanent promotion and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). 

3.  The applicant was promoted to major effective 17 March 1995 with a date of rank of 2 July 1994.

4.  The applicant was later assigned to a troop program unit with the Utah Army National Guard (UT ARNG).

5.  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to LTC by the 2000 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB).  The President approved the board results on 9 February 2001.

6.  Based on the required 7 years time in grade, his maximum time in grade (MTIG) date for promotion to LTC was 1 July 2001.

7.  On 3 May 2001, the applicant requested removal of his non-selection letter by the 2000 promotion board.

8.  On 28 March 2002, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determined that the applicant was eligible for voiding of his 2000 non-selection letter and recommended promotion reconsideration to LTC by a special selection board (SSB) under the 2000 criteria.  The ABCMR also recommended that if selected, the applicant be promoted to the next higher grade on his date of eligibility thereof, as determined by appropriate Departmental officials using the 2000 criteria, provided he was otherwise qualified and met all other prerequisites for promotion.
9.  The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to LTC under the 2000 criteria by a SSB that convened on 24 October and recessed on 25 October 2002.

10.  The applicant was issued a promotion selection memorandum dated 8 April 2003, indicating his selection for promotion to LTC under the 2000 criteria by a SSB.  The memorandum advised the applicant he was eligible for his original date of rank of 1 July 2001.

11.  The applicant's Federal Recognition was withdrawn and he was separated from the UT ARNG effective 28 April 2003.  He transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) effective 29 April 2003.  He was issued a promotion memorandum dated 29 April 2003 showing his promotion effective date and date of rank for LTC as 29 April 2003.

12.  The Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), expressed the opinion that the applicant was promoted to major on 2 July 1994 and promotion to LTC requires 7 years time in grade; therefore, his promotion eligibility date was 1 July 2001.  The officer was considered and not recommended for promotion to LTC by the 2000 RCSB.  The officer applied to the ABCMR for removal of his letter of non-selection and the ABCMR directed that letter of non-selection should be voided and he should be considered by a SSB as if a mandatory promotion board never considered his record.  Therefore, his record was identified to the SSB that recessed on 25 October 2002 and he was recommended.

13.  The opinion also stated that a notification memorandum was sent to the National Guard Bureau and a copy was furnished to the officer stating his date of rank would be 1 July 2001, the date he was extended Federal Recognition in the higher grade or the date following the date Federal Recognition was terminated in his current Reserve grade.  The National Guard unit did not have a higher graded position; therefore, his Federal Recognition was withdrawn on 28 April 2003 and he was transferred to the IRR on 29 April 2003.  Accordingly, a promotion memorandum was prepared showing his date of rank as 29 April 2003.

14.  The opinion further stated that a staff member of the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM, talked to the applicant on numerous occasions and advised the applicant that his date of rank would be 29 April 2003, based on his transfer to the IRR. The applicant understood and was willing to accept this date. Based on this information, it was recommended the application be denied.

15.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgment/rebuttal on 29 September 2003.  In his rebuttal, dated 9 October 2003, the applicant stated that he was selected for promotion by a SSB after irregularities in the 2000 RCSB were acknowledged in October 2002.  Within 45 days of notification, he was reassigned from the UT ARNG because there was no LTC Chaplain position available.  He entered the IRR, was promoted the next day, and assigned 29 April 2003 as his date of rank.  

16.  The rebuttal also stated this was wrong.  Had the Army acted correctly at the 2000 board, he would have been selected 2 years sooner and notified in Spring 2001.  He would have resigned from the UT ARNG then instead of April 2003 and he could have been promoted on 1 July 2001.  He had no reason to be willing to accept the 29 April 2003 date and never did.  He contacted the Office of Promotions numerous times to ask the reason for the belated promotion date.  The staff member failed to explain it completely or clearly.  The problem is a clerical error made by the Army that cost him his original selection in October 2000 and promotion on 1 July 2001, as promised in the promotion selection letter.  He requests to have his correct date of rank of 1 July 2001.

17.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that officers selected by a SSB are eligible for the same date of rank that they would have received by the original board in which the error occurred.  It also specifies that promotion may only be effective upon positioning in the higher grade or assignment to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  

18.  Army Regulation 135-155 also specifies that an officer is promoted after selection if all qualifications for promotions are met.  When an officer does not meet the qualification for promotion, the promotion effective date and date of rank may be advanced to the date qualifications are met.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a correction to his date of rank for LTC.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The applicant's contention that his date of rank should be changed from 29 April 2003 to 1 July 2001 has been noted.  However, the applicant was selected for promotion to LTC by a SSB with a projected promotion date of 1 July 2001 provided he was serving in a LTC position.  His ARNG unit did not have a LTC position and his Federal Recognition was withdrawn on 28 April 2003.  He was transferred to the IRR on 29 April 2003 and promoted to LTC, the earliest date he could be promoted, based on his transfer to the IRR.

3.  Pertinent regulations clearly show that TPU officers selected by a SSB are eligible for the same date of rank that they would have received by the original board in which the error occurred provided they are positioned in the higher grade.  Promotion may only become effective the date of assignment to the higher graded position or assignment to the IRR.

4.  The applicant's contentions that had the Army acted correctly at the 2000 RCSB, he would have been selected and resigned from the UT ARNG sooner have been noted.  However, the applicant has not submitted evidence that he was or would have been placed in a higher graded position on his date of rank.  It cannot be presumed a position for his specialty existed at the time, that he would have been selected for such a position, or that he would have immediately transferred to the IRR.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ro____  ___lf____  __mt______  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.

		___Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091210	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040224	
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.