IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  3 December 2021

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210008816


APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of her Army National Guard (ARNG) military 
records to show:

*	she completed 6 years of ARNG service
*	she was separated in the rank of captain (CPT) vice first lieutenant (1LT)

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states she is requesting her record be corrected to have her release 
date from the ARNG updated to include a full 6 years of service. Also, to have her rank 
updated to Captain at the time of her discharge. She joined the ARNG on 5 October 
2012 and was scheduled to be released in October 2018, which would have satisfied 
her 6-year obligation to the Military. 

	a.  She believes her record to be unjust because when she reported for duty in May 
of 2018, an enlisted person who worked in the office came to her while she was in the 
restroom and asked her if she was aware that this would be her last weekend of 
service. She told her that was incorrect, because she was scheduled to be released in 
October of that year. She informed her that she received notification that this would 
indeed be her last weekend with the ARNG.

	b.  Prior to being discharged from the ARNG she informed her reporting 
Commanders of her desire to depart from the military once her service time was 
completed. At the time she was also scheduled to be promoted to the rank of Captain 
before her release in October. Her Commanders discussed with her a ceremony that 
they would have for her promotion. Before she could get promoted and fulfill her service 
obligation of 6 years she was released. She didn't get any notification or any 
explanation. Her commanders did not speak to her again once that weekend ended.  

2.  Review of the applicant's service records shows: 

	a.  She served in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG) in an enlisted status 
from 23 October 2012 to 7 August 2013, completing 9 months and 15 days of ARNG 
service. 

	b.  She served a period of active duty from 22 January 2013 to 7 August 2013, and 
completed Officer Candidate School. 

	c.  She was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army and the 
MOARNG in the rank of second lieutenant on 8 August 2013, having executed an oath 
of office on that date. 

	d.  She entered and completed the Ordnance Basic Officer Leader Course from 
29 September 2013 to 14 February 2014. 

	e.  State promotion orders 043-044, issued on 12 February 2015 promoted her to 
1LT in the State ARNG, effective 8 February 2015. 

	f.  On 29 June 2015, the NGB published Orders 135 AR extending her Federal 
recognition for promotion to 1LT with an effective date and date of rank as 8 February 
2015. 

	g.  On 4 January 2018, she submitted a request for resignation as an officer in the 
MOARNG under Army Regulation (ATR) 135-175 (Officer Separations), due to personal 
and professional reasons, to be effective upon approval of her request. Her chain of 
command recommended approval. 

	h.  On 29 May 2018, The Adjutant General approved her resignation and directed 
her be honorably separated from the MOARNG on 1 May 2018. 

	i.  The MOARNG published Orders 089-258 ordering her honorable discharge from 
the ARNG effective 1 May 2018, in the rank of 1LT by reason of "Resignation." 

	j.  The NGB published Special Orders 85 withdrawing Federal recognition effective 
1 May 2018. There is no NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) on 
file or provided by the applicant. However, her NGB Form 23A (ARNG Current Annual 
Statement) shows she completed 5 years, 6 months and 9 days of total ARNG service 

	k.  There is no evidence in the record and she provides none to show she was 
recommended for promotion to CPT by her State ARNG, or has an approved scroll by 
the Secretary of Defense, or was extended Federal recognition in that grade.

	l.  There is no evidence in her records and she provides none to show she 
performed any ARNG or U.S. Army Reserve duties beyond her separation date of 
1 May 2018, that would have made her total service 6 years. 

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted.  The applicant’s 
contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered.  
Evidence of record shows the applicant requested, and was approved for a resignation 
of her commission prior to reaching 6 years of service.  The applicant was separated at 
the rank of 1LT.  Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined 
there is insufficient evidence that shows an error or injustice occurred.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:XX	:XX	:XX	DENY APPLICATION


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.


		  
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.


REFERENCES:

National Guard Regulation 600-100(Personnel - General, Commissioned Officers 
Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions, prescribes policies and procedures 
governing the appointment, assignment, temporary Federal Recognition, Federal 
Recognition, reassignment, transfers between States, branch transfers, area of 
concentration designation, utilization, branch detail, and attachment of commissioned 
officers of the Army National Guard (ARNG). The promotion of officers in the ARNG is a 
function of the State. As in original appointments, a commissioned officer promoted by 
State authorities has a State status in the higher grade under which to function. 
However, to be extended Federal Recognition in the higher grade, the officer must have 
satisfied the requirements prescribed herein. National Guard officers may be considered 
and found qualified for Federal Recognition of their State promotion using two distinct 
processes: State Federal Recognition Boards and DA Mandatory Boards. Under either 
process, the precedent for an actual promotion in the Army National Guard is State 
assignment and appointment to the next higher grade.

	a.  State Federal Recognition Boards (FRB). Officers may be federally recognized 
through State FRB which are often referred to as "State vacancy promotion boards" or 
"unit vacancy boards" as part the Unit Vacancy Promotion (UVP) process under 32 
USC 307.

	b.  DA Mandatory Boards. The second way to federally recognize the State 
promotion is through the DA Mandatory Promotion Selection Boards process. 
Mandatory promotion selection boards are convened by the Secretary of the Army 
pursuant to 10 USC 14101(a). Those National Guard officers selected (“DA Select”) by 
a DA mandatory board who are then appointed by the State in that higher grade to fill a 
vacancy in the Army National Guard are extended Federal Recognition in that grade, 
without the examination prescribed by 32 USC 307 (see 10 USC 14316)

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210008816


4

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1