RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001086 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 Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. James E. Anderholm Chairperson Mr. Jose A. Martinez Member Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas Member 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 that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC). 2. The applicant states the ABCMR’s approved 28 February 1996 recommendation to promote him to LTC has never been carried out. 3. The applicant provides the ABCMR’s 28 February 1996 proceedings. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 28 February 1996, the ABCMR recommended that the applicant be promoted to LTC under 1991 promotion criteria if he was otherwise qualified and met all other prerequisites for promotion. 2. Army Regulation 135-18 and National Guard Regulation 600-5 govern implementation of the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program. Essentially, the program provides for selected US Army Reserve (USAR) and Army National Guard (ARNG) personnel to be voluntarily called to active duty for special projects, programs or mission essential tasks. Periods of active duty may vary from 1 to 3 years, with provisions for voluntary extension of the period of active duty beyond the initial call. 3. Army Regulation 140-30, paragraph 7-1, states that officers in the AGR program may be selected for promotion regardless of their current position but will not be promoted until the officers are assigned to positions requiring the higher grade. 4. Title 10, US Code, Section 1370, states that a commissioned officer is placed on the Retired List in the highest grade he or she served on active duty satisfactorily. 5. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB). The NGB stated that the applicant was an AGR officer who was released from active duty on 31 August 1995 and placed on the Retired List the following day under the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA), in effect at that time. 6. The NGB explains that an AGR officer’s selection for promotion does not guarantee that officer’s promotion. The officer must be assigned to a higher graded position before being promoted. Because of this limitation, an AGR officer may delay promotion indefinitely. The NGB recommended that the applicant be promoted concurrently with his assignment to the USAR Control Group. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Board specified in its earlier recommendation that the applicant was to be promoted to LTC only if he was otherwise qualified and met all other prerequisites for promotion. 2. The applicant did not meet all other prerequisites for promotion. He was not assigned to an LTC position. As such, he was properly not promoted to LTC. 3. The NGB’s recommendation has been carefully considered. However, to promote the applicant, he would have to be assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The applicant was released from active duty in the AGR program on 31 August 1995 and placed on the Retired List the following day on 1 September 1995. He was never assigned to the IRR. 4. The applicant was retired from active duty for years of service under the VERA. He could not be retired for years of service under that authority if he were assigned to the IRR. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___lmd__ ____jea__ ____jam_ 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. ______James E. Anderholm__________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001086 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20051025 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE 20051025 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.