IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 May 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003736 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 her date of rank (DOR) for captain be adjusted. 2. The applicant states: a. she was recommended for promotion to captain in April 2009 while serving as the company commander for Company G, 39th Brigade Support Battalion (BSB), a captain position in area of concentration (AOC) 90A (Logistics). A few months went by and she started asking about her promotion and was continuously told she was not fully qualified to be promoted in that position. b. she completed the Support Operations Course (AOC 90A) in an attempt to get 90A qualified. The State moved her into different duty positions trying to get her promoted and she was ultimately promoted to captain on 23 February 2010 in the same duty position that she was not originally qualified to be promoted in. She held the company commander position the entire time this was happening. 3. The applicant provides: * Email traffic between herself and the Inspector General (IG) * IG findings, dated 26 June 2012 * Orders * DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) * Promotion packet, dated April 2009 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard (ARNG), the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the ARNG on 29 October 2004. She was promoted to first lieutenant on 29 October 2006 with a DOR of 29 October 2006. 2. In April 2009, her promotion packet for captain was submitted. 3. Orders, dated 13 April 2009, show she was relieved from duty position Maintenance Control Officer (AOC 91A - Ordnance) and reassigned to duty position Commander (AOC 90A) effective 1 May 2009. 4. She completed the Support Operations Course on 10 August 2009. 5. On 13 September 2009, a Federal Recognition Board determined she was qualified to be awarded Federal recognition as a captain. 6. State orders, dated 23 October 2009, show she was promoted to captain effective 13 September 2009. These orders state the effective date of promotion in the ARNG will be the date permanent Federal Recognition orders are published. 7. She completed the Ordnance Captains Career Course on 11 December 2009. 8. National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Orders Number 35 AR, dated 25 February 2010, show she was extended Federal recognition for promotion to captain, effective 23 February 2010. 9. On 26 June 2012, the Office of the IG, Office of the Adjutant General, North Little Rock, Arkansas responded to the applicant's request for assistance (to investigate whether or not she should have been promoted to captain when she was assigned as the company commander for Company G, 39th BSB). The letter states: a. unit vacancy promotions are handled differently than time-in-grade/time-in-service promotions. To be eligible for promotion to captain in a unit vacancy, you must be fully qualified for the vacant position. When she was assigned as the Company G, 39th BSB Commander she was a 91A, but the position was coded 90A, thus she was not fully qualified. b. she was promoted under the time in service criteria of 4 years plus 1 year and best qualified. c. after the State Board approves recommendation for promotion (September 2009), the packet is forwarded to the National Guard Bureau and finally to the Secretary of the Army, which is the approving authority for Federal Recognition. Her Federal Recognition to captain is dated 23 February 2010, which is her correct DOR. The processing time from State to Federal Recognition is within normal timelines. d. the Arkansas National Guard IG's office will take no further action on this matter. 10. National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) prescribes policies and procedures governing, in part, the appointment, Federal Recognition, and separation of commissioned officers of the ARNG. Paragraph 8-2 states the effective date of promotion for an ARNG commissioned officer who is promoted in the State is the date the Chief, NGB extends Federal Recognition unless otherwise provided by law. An officer's DOR as a reserve of the Army will be determined by his or her duty status, type of selection board which selected the officer, and delay status (if applicable), unless otherwise provided by law. Additionally, paragraph 8-6c states promotion will be accomplished only when the officer is assigned to an appropriate Modified Table of Organization or Table of Distribution and Allowances and Equipment vacancy in which he or she has been recommended for promotion until Federal Recognition orders are published. 11. Table 2-1 of Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) states that the minimum time in grade as a first lieutenant for promotion to captain is 2 years and the maximum time in grade is 5 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests her DOR for captain be adjusted. 2. Evidence shows she was appointed as a first lieutenant in the ARNG on 29 October 2006 with a DOR of 29 October 2006. 3. She contends she should have been promoted to captain when she was assigned to Company G, BSB, as the company commander. However, to be eligible for promotion to captain in a unit vacancy, the officer must be fully qualified for the vacant position. She was not fully qualified because her AOC was 91A and the company commander position was coded AOC 90A. 4. In September 2009, a Federal Recognition Board determined she was qualified to be awarded Federal recognition as a captain. She was granted Federal Recognition for promotion to captain effective 23 February 2010 with a DOR of 23 February 2010. 5. She was promoted to captain within the time in grade criteria. 6. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provided no evidence which shows her promotion to captain was not processed in a timely manner or her DOR is incorrect. 7. In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20130003736 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003736 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1