RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070017285 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his Major (MAJ) date of rank (DOR) be changed from 28 August 2006 to 7 June 2006. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was in a MAJ’s position prior to, and when the Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB) results were approved on 7 June 2006. 3. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: Officer Evaluation Report (OER) ending on 31 July 2005; Mobilization Orders, dated 11 August 2005; OER ending on 14 April 2006; Separation Document (DD Form 214), dated 9 May 2006; Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) Orders, dated 20 April 2006, and Promotion Qualification Statement, dated 8 July 2006. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record shows that he was appointed a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 18 June 1993. He was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) on 17 June 1996, and he was promoted to captain (CPT) on 1 March 2000. 2. The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains an OER covering the period 7 October 2004 through 31 July 2005, in which the applicant was evaluated as a Civil Affairs Direct Support Detachment Commander, while assigned to the 352nd Civil Affairs Command, Riverdale, Maryland. 3. Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Orders R223-006, ordered the applicant to active duty for deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, effective 11 August 2005. 4. The applicant's OMPF contains an OER covering the period 1 August 2005 through 14 April 2006, in which the applicant was evaluated as a Civil Affairs Planner, while assigned to Headquarters, SOCOM Central, McDill Air Force Base, Florida. 5. On 9 May 2006, the applicant was honorably REFRAD and returned to the 352nd Civil Affairs Command, Riverdale, Maryland. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 9 months and 9 days of active duty service during the period. 6. The applicant's record further shows that he was selected for promotion to MAJ by a RCSB, and that the promotion list was approved on 7 June 2006. 7. Headquarters, United States Army Human Resources Command, St, Louis, Missouri (HRC-St. Louis, Orders C-08-628483 released the applicant from the 352nd Civil Affairs Command to a MAJ’s position with SOCOM, McDill, Air Force Base, effective 28 August 2006 and assigned him. The applicant's OMPF also contains an OER that covers the period 28 August 2006 through 15 June 2007, which evaluated the applicant as a Civil Affairs Plans and Operations Officer for SOCOM. 8. During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC-St. Louis Chief, Special Actions Branch, Department of the Army (DA) Promotions. This official stated that the applicant was on active duty as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Soldier at the time the RCSB was held. However, he was REFRAD on 9 May 2006, and was not deployed/mobilized on 7 June 2006, when the promotion list he was on was approved. He further states that the applicant was promoted based on the date he was placed in the higher grade position as an IMA officer on 28 August 2006, and was given this date as a DOR. He confirms this is the earliest date the applicant could have been promoted by their office. 9. The HRC-St. Louis opinion further indicates that the applicant submitted a Form 56R with his application; however, this document has not been validated. He states that had the form been submitted through the Special Forces Career Manager's Office, and that office had submitted the form to his office, the 180 day mobilization rule could have been in effect from the date of the applicant's REFRAD, 9 May 2006, through the date the applicant was placed in the higher graded position on 26 August 2006, and the applicant's DOR could have been established as 8 June 2006. He states that since this did not occur and the applicant has just now submitted the form with his application to the Board, the form has still not been validated. As a result, this HRC-St. Louis promotion official recommends the applicant's request for an earlier DOR be denied. 10. On 1 February 2008, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC-St. Louis advisory opinion, and while he failed to provide a formal rebuttal, on 9 March 2008, he submitted an electronic mail message with attachments that include a Promotion Qualification Statement, dated 8 July 2006, which shows he was assigned to a MAJ Detachment Commander position on 8 June 2006. 11. The applicant's e-mail attachments also included Records of Individual Performance of Reserve Duty Training (DA Forms 1380), dated 30 June 2006 and 9 July 2006, which show he performed duties as an Assistant S-3 on 19, 20, 26 and 30 June 2006, and that attended drill on 8 and 9 July 2006, as a member of the 402nd Civil Affairs Battalion. 12. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the USAR. Chapter 4, Section III states, in pertinent part, that the effective date of promotion for commissioned officers (except commissioned warrant officers) may not precede the date on which the promotion memorandum is issued. Do not issue the promotion memorandum before the date the promotion board results are approved and confirmed by the Senate (if required). In addition, the officer must already be assigned/attached to a position in the higher grade or, if an IRR/IMA officer selected by a mandatory promotion board, have completed the maximum years of service in grade (MYIG) in the current grade. Table 2-1 outlines time in grade requirements for commissioned officers and indicates, in pertinent part, that the MYIG for promotion from CPT to MAJ is 7 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his MAJ DOR should be changed from 28 August 2006 to 7 June 2006, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The evidence of record shows that although he was assigned to a MAJ’s position prior to his deployment on 11 August 2005, he was not assigned to a MAJ’s position immediately subsequent to his return from deployment on 9 May 2006, or on the date the RCSB promotion list he was on was approved on 7 June 2006. 3. As indicated in the HRC advisory opinion provided, the applicant was not deployed at the time the promotion list was approved and did not qualify for a deployment exception. Further, he was not assigned to a MAJ’s position until 26 August 2006, which HRC established as the effective date of his promotion and DOR in accordance with the applicable regulation. 4. Although the applicant provides a Promotion Qualification Statement, dated 8 July 2006, which indicates he was placed in a MAJ’s position on 8 June 2006, this form is unverified and was never processed through proper channels. As a result, there is no evidence of an error or injustice related to the applicant's MAJ promotion date or DOR, and there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 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