IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110015922 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 captain (CPT) date of rank (DOR) be corrected and that he be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result. 2. The applicant states his paperwork for promotion to CPT was complete as of 3 November 2009, and he was informed it was submitted to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and he would be promoted around 1 December 2009. He claims he then discovered in late January 2010 that his paperwork had not been submitted to NGB at all and it had to be resubmitted which resulted in his promotion to CPT being delayed until 1 March 2010. 3. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: * CPT Promotion Packet * Mobilization Orders * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Promotion inquiry electronic mail (e-mail) messages CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record shows that after having had prior commissioned officer service in the U.S. Marine Corps, he was initially commissioned a Reserve first lieutenant (1LT) in the ARNG on 12 April 2010, with a 1LT DOR of 27 March 2007. 2. On 19 February 2010, The Adjutant General, State of Georgia Orders 050-714 promoted the applicant to CPT with a DOR and effective date of 19 February 2010. 3. On 1 March 2010, NGB Special Orders Number 37 AR extended Federal recognition to the applicant in the grade of CPT effective and with a DOR of 1 March 2010. 4. In connection with the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, NGB. The advisory official, in conjunction with the National Guard Chaplains Office, recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for correction of the effective date of his promotion and DOR to CPT. This official confirms the Georgia ARNG verified the applicant was not solely in an authorized CPT position until 27 January 2010, and that he was not the sole holder of the slot he was in when his original State promotion order was published in October 2009. He further confirms the GAARNG provided several reasons why his promotion packet was not submitted for Federal Recognition on 3 November 2009, including the reason the applicant had not been formally recommended for promotion. He further indicates once the applicant was placed in a CPT position and the necessary corrections were made to his promotion packet, it was submitted to the NGB for Federal recognition processing in January 2010, and followed normal processing timelines which resulted in the applicant’s promotion on 1 March 2010. NGB confirms the State concurred with their advisory opinion. 5. On 5 July 2012, the applicant was provided a copy of the NGB advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply to or rebut its contents. To date, he has failed to respond. 6. National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officers-Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) provides procedures for processing applications for Federal recognition. Chapter 8 provides guidance on promotion for other than general officers and states, in pertinent part, that the promotion of officers in the ARNG is a function of the State. Chapter 10 contains guidance on the Federal recognition process and states, in pertinent part, that Federal recognition is extended by the Chief, NGB. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his promotion and Federal recognition as a CPT should have been accomplished in November/December 2009 has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. By regulation, officer promotions are a function of the State. Further, members must be assigned to and filling an authorized position in the promotion grade in order to be promoted. 3. The NGB advisory opinion shows the applicant was promoted after being assigned to and being the sole holder of an authorized CPT position and after normal processing of the promotion/Federal recognition packet. Although the applicant claims he was assigned to a CPT position in November/December 2009, the evidence suggests he was not the sole holder of that position which is necessary to be promotion. Given promotion is the function of the State and the State has concurred in the NGB advisory opinion recommendation to deny the applicant’s request, it is concluded the applicant’s promotion was effected by the State and NGB within its regulatory discretion. Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the 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) AR20110015922 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110015922 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1