BOARD DATE: 27 September 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120003486 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests special selection board (SSB) consideration for promotion to captain under the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Active Duty List (ADL) criteria. 2. The applicant states that, if he had stayed on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) he would have been eligible for consideration to promotion to captain by the FY11 board, but he was moved to the ADL and he was not eligible for consideration. His branch manager told him that he was ineligible because he did not have a continuous year on active duty. However, had he known of the possibility of a waiver he would certainly have obtained the necessary support from his chain of command. It seems to him that his branch manager set him up to fail by not telling him of the possibility of a waiver. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation to substantiate his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) first lieutenant in the Adjutant General Corps, with a date of rank of 27 August 2009, was on active duty from February 2009 to February 2010. He re-entered active duty on 1 June 2010. 2. An advisory opinion from the Chief, Officer Promotions, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) advised: a. the applicant was ineligible for consideration by the FY11 ADL board because he did not have a year of continuous active duty; b. requests for an exception to the statutory requirement in Title 10 U.S. Code 619(c) must be forwarded through the first general officer in the individual's chain of command; and c. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) specifically addresses this issue. 3. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for his consideration and possible rebuttal. In response the applicant: a. complained that HRC did not perform due diligence because he was referred to as a captain when, in fact, he is not; and b. acknowledged that a "MILPER message" had been published regarding the promotion board, but he believed that HRC was responsible for his branch manager's having given him faulty information. He also maintained that the Officer Promotions Branch informed him that he had been inadvertently non-considered and therefore, he had a basis for consideration by an SSB. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 1-10 provides: "e. Officers in the following categories are not eligible for consideration by a promotion selection board… (5) Commissioned officers with less than 1 year of continuous active duty (since their most recent placement on the ADL) before the board convenes (10 USC 619(c)). Requests for exception to this requirement must be forwarded through the first general officer in the chain of command…The requests must substantiate that the officer’s break in service does not warrant the protection provided by the 1–year active duty requirement. Requests for exception will be processed on a case-by-case basis." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant states that he would have obtained a waiver if his branch manager had not told him that he was ineligible for consideration by the FY11 board. 2. The applicant denies any personal responsibility for his failure to look after his own career despite the fact that the governing regulation, Army Regulation 600-8-29, is quite clear concerning officers in his specific situation. 3. He also seems to believe that both a flag officer's support and HRC approval of a waiver were pro-forma matters. However, the regulation's wording, "requests must substantiate that the officer’s break in service does not warrant the protection provided (emphasis added) by the 1–year active duty requirement makes it clear that this is not the case. 4. Notwithstanding the applicant’s assertion that his branch manager informed him that he was ineligible but neglected to inform him that there was a waiver procedure or that there would have been any support for him to obtain a waiver, there appears to be no error or injustice in this case. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x__ _x_______ __x______ 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. _______ _ x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120003486 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120003486 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1