IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005917 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ____X__ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005917 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005917 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 adjustment of her of rank (DOR) to captain (CPT) and possibly first lieutenant (1LT). 2. The applicant states: a. With prior enlisted service, she was reaccessed into the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) as an officer on 1 June 2010. Prior to her return to the AGR program she was a troop program unit (TPU) officer serving in a Reserve unit and then on mobilization orders. At the time of her permanent change of station (PCS) to the Fort McCoy Army Reserve Training Center, her current organization code was not electronically updated by her branch manager prior to the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) CPT promotion board convening date. The morning the FY 2011 CPT board results were released she discovered her name was not listed as being considered or selected for promotion. b. She telephoned the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC). The HR Supervisor, Officer Promotions Branch, asked if she was a TPU or AGR officer. She stated she was a newly accessed AGR officer as of 1 June 2010. The supervisor stated that there was some confusion regarding her status so her name was removed from the FY 2011 CPT board altogether. She did not receive a reason as to why this error occurred. She received instructions on the process to correct the mistake. This mistake was not her fault. c. Following the instructions, she submitted the required memorandum to HRC requesting a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to CPT. Upon receipt of the favorable SSB results, she inquired into the effective date of the letter and her subsequent promotion. It was dated 19 February 2012 which she believed to be incorrect, thinking it was based on the FY11 board. She then received an effective DOR of 1 June 2011 by HRC. Once again she questioned the effective date being so late after the board since she was assigned to a valid CPT slot prior to the board convening. In response to her email, she was told that she would not have a sequence number, but would have the first available promotion effective date from the FY11 board based on her 1LT DOR. d. She believes this is an injustice because her 1LT promotion effective date was backed-dated as well. She is not sure if HRC did a comprehensive review of her records once she completed the SSB application to determine her DOR to CPT. She has no way of knowing how she stands compared to her peers on the FY11 board because she never received a sequence number as a result of the error of being initially excluded from the board. This error is like a domino effect as she believes it continues to cause delays in her career. Due to her CPT DOR she will not be considered for a below the zone look for major (MAJ) with many of her peers. She believes this is an injustice. e. She was told telephonically that her CPT effective date is the earliest date possible in line with her peers. She wants to ensure both promotion effective dates are correct so she won't have any concerns going forward with future promotions. She has since discovered that 1 June 2011 was not the earliest date of promotion for her peers. 3. The applicant provides copies of her Orders Number B-10-806346 and B-09-205771, SSB results memorandum, and three emails to and from HRC. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a second lieutenant on 3 October 2006 with prior enlisted service. 2. HRC issued the following orders: * Orders Number B-10-806346, 3 October 2008, promoting her to 1LT in the USAR with an effective date and DOR of 20 August 2008 * Orders Number R-03-183813, 10 March 2011, showing she was on active duty in an AGR status with a PCS to the 9th Theater Support Group, Honolulu, HI 3. She provides copies of: a. An SSB results memorandum, dated 11 September 2011, in which she was notified of her selection for promotion to CPT USAR with an effective date and DOR of 19 February 2012. The memorandum also advised that the earliest DOR she could receive was the date the promotion list was approved (27 January 2011) provided she was assigned to a higher grade position. b. An email, dated 17 September 2012, in which she advised HRC that she had been assigned to a CPT's slot since 1 June 2010 and was assigned to a MAJ slot on 15 May 2011, without a break in PCS assignments. c. Orders Number B-09-205771, issued by HRC on 20 September 2012, promoting her to CPT, with an effective date and DOR of 1 June 2011. d. Two emails: * 21 September 2012 – in which she requested an adjustment of her DOR to CPT to 27 January 2011 due to her eligibility and her assignment in a CPT/O-3 slot effective 1 June 2010 * 24 September 2012 – from HRC advising her that AGR officers are promoted by sequence number, and based on her DOR to 1LT USAR the earliest she could be promoted was 1 June 2011 4. In an advisory opinion, dated 11 February 2016, the Chief, Officer Promotions Special Actions, HRC, recommended denial of the applicant's request. The HRC official stated: a. The usage of sequence (SEQ) numbers to promote AGR officers from promotion lists in order of seniority was approved for use effective for FY11. Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and USAR Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), Section 11, Eligibility for Consideration and General Qualifications for Selection, 2-3, Precedence or relative rank of commissioned officers, states the precedence or relative rank of commissioned officers, whether or not on active duty, was based first on grade. Rank among officers of the same grade was determined by comparing the DORs. An officer whose DOR was earlier than that of another officer of the same or equivalent grade was senior to that officer. The rules allow determination of precedence and relative rank among different categories of commissioned officers. b. The applicant was properly sequenced based on the results of the SSB and the approved FY CPT Army Promotion List (APL) board results. Her 1LT DOR of 20 August 2008 fell between a group of officers (already SEQ on an approved list) with 1LT DORs of 19 August 2008 (SEQ # starting 64) through 6 September 2008 (SEQ # 83). That group was eligible and approved for promotion effective 1 June 2011. c. Officers in the same peer or class group do not equate to equals, there are many different variables in each group "undenounced" to each other that were used for seniority placement such as those noted within Army Regulation 135-155. Therefore, one should not consider the term "peer group" to be all inclusive as equals. 5. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant on 24 February 2016 for acknowledgement/rebuttal. She did not respond. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve officers. The regulation states for promotion from 2LT to 1LT, the officer will be considered for promotion without review by a selection board. The officer’s records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed. The time in grade requirements for promotion to 1LT are a minimum of 2 years in the lower grade of 2LT through a maximum of 42 months. For promotion to CPT, the minimum number of years in the lower grade 1LT to CPT is 2 years and the maximum number of years is 5 years. For promotion to 1LT or CPT, the officer must complete required military and civilian education requirements, pass an Army Physical Fitness Test or on a valid profile, meet height and weight standards, and be in a valid position authenticated by the unit commander. SSBs are convened to correct/prevent an injustice to an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion but whose records through error, were not submitted to a mandatory selection board. DISCUSSION: 1. With respect to the applicant's DOR to CPT: a. She was promoted to CPT with a DOR of 1 June 2011 as a result of an SSB and the approval date of the FY11 CPT board. HRC opined that a change in policy for the FY11 CPT board promoted the applicant in order of seniority. Her 1LT DOR fell between a group of officers already SEQ on an approved list. That group was eligible and approved for promotion effective the same date as the applicant. b. There is no evidence and she provided none showing she was improperly SEQ based on her 1LT DOR with her peers and/or unjustly denied an earlier DOR to CPT. 2. With respect to her DOR to 1LT, she was promoted to 1LT with a DOR of 20 August 2008 which is 2 years after her appointment as a USAR 2LT, thus she met the regulatory minimum time in grade requirement. There is no evidence and she provided none showing she was not promoted to 1LT on the earliest date she was eligible providing she met all other criteria. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005917 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005917 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2