IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 June 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007549 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 his date of rank (DOR) for major be adjusted to 21 December 2012. 2. The applicant states: a. his promotion to major was delayed as a result of a glitch in the promotion process. Failure to detect unqualified personnel resulted in the list being compromised and he was placed on a new promotion list. This inherent problem in the Department of the Army promotion process definitely affected his promotion and negatively impacted his DOR by approximately 90 days. In view of this fact, there have been several promotion lists which began after his, yet were published well before his was published. This is an enormous inequality in the promotion system as a result of this setback. b. the promotion process currently being used by the Department of the Army lacks efficiency. Due to the Army's inability to adequately vet their promotion (scroll) list to ensure everyone on the list is eligible and a viable candidate, Army National Guard Soldiers are forced to contend with being promoted months later than expected. Quality Soldiers as a whole should not be required to bear the burdens caused by a systemic problem. 3. The applicant provides: * Federal Recognition Packet Status * Kansas State Promotion Board Results * Email, dated 7 September 2012 * Timeline for his promotion * National Guard Bureau (NGB) orders, dated 13 March 2013 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and Army National Guard, the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the Kansas Army National Guard on 23 September 2003. He was promoted to captain on 28 January 2008. 2. Kansas State Orders, dated 7 September 2012, show he was promoted to major effective 6 September 2012. 3. NGB Special Orders Number 74 AR, dated 13 March 2013, awarded him permanent Federal recognition for promotion to the rank of major effective 8 March 2013. 4. Authority granted to the Secretaries of the Military Departments in Secretary of Defense Memorandum, subject: Redelegation of Authority under Executive Order 12396, dated 9 December 1982, to appoint officers under section 624 of Title 10, U.S. Code, in the grades of O-2 and O-3 was rescinded effective 1 July 2005 based on advice from the Department of Justice that prohibits redelegation below the Secretary of Defense of the President's authority to appoint military officers. All military officer appointments under section 12203 of Title 10, U.S. Code, including original appointments, in the Reserve of the Army, Reserve of the Air Force, Naval Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve, not previously approved by 30 June 2005, shall also be submitted to the Secretary of Defense. 5. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers, Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the ARNG of the United States and commissioned and warrant officers of the U.S. Army Reserve. Table 2-1 (Time in Grade Requirements for Commissioned Officers, Other Than Commissioned Warrant Officers) of this regulation outlines the service requirements for promotion and indicates that for promotion to major the minimum years in the lower grade is 4 years and the maximum years in the lower grade is 7 years. 6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14308(f) states that the effective date of a promotion of a Reserve commissioned officer in the Army who is extended Federal recognition in the next higher grade in the ARNG shall be the date in which such Federal recognition in that grade is so extended. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions and his supporting evidence have been carefully considered. 2. While all the facts in the applicant’s particular promotion/Federal recognition process are not known, he contends the problems affected the entire promotion list. And while any such delays as a result of a “glitch” in the promotion process are regrettable, there is no inequity as he was not singled out by the “glitch.” It appears that all Soldiers on the promotion list in question were equally disadvantaged. 3. In addition, by law all military officer appointments are required to be placed on a scroll and be processed through various channels up to the Secretary of Defense. He could not have been promoted to major until the scroll was approved by the Secretary of Defense. Scrolling actions are not within the purview of this Board. 4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's effective date of promotion to major seems appropriate and reasonable and should not be adjusted. 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) AR20130007549 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130007549 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1