IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110018218 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) to first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 be changed to 28 October 2010. 2. The applicant states he was under a suspension of favorable personnel actions (flag) for height and weight which was scheduled to be removed on 7 November 2010. He states the paperwork was processed but not signed until 15 January 2011. He states at this point he was eligible for promotion, but this action was never updated in the record through no fault of his own. He states that only after he contacted the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) promotions branch was the flag lifted. 3. The applicant provides a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 15 January 2011, and DA Form 2B (Personnel Qualification Record), dated 26 August 2011, in support of his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The record shows the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 3 April 2009 and was promoted to 1LT on 17 July 2011. The record is void of any documents related to the flagging action referred to by the applicant. 2. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC Chief, Officer Promotions. This official opines, based on the information provided, that the applicant's request to adjust his DOR be denied. He states the applicant was previously coded (49) ineligible for promotion by his command. This code was removed/changed which allowed HRC to promote the applicant to 1LT/O-2 effective and with a DOR of 17 July 2011. He further states their office cannot affirm that the DA Form 268 provided by the applicant relates to noncompliance with height and weight standards. Weight control flag removals are "close coded" E-type report, not code C-type as indicated on the DA Form 268 provided by the applicant. This official indicates the applicant should contact his Personnel Administrative Office directly for additional information as it relates to his current DOR. 3. On 29 November 2011, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply to or rebut its contents. To date, he has failed to respond. 4. The applicant provides a DA Form 268, dated 15 January 2011, which indicates the flagging action was removed on 1 November 2010 and the case was closed favorably under code C. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the policy for Army officer promotions. Paragraph 1-19 provides guidance on officers in a non-promotable status and lists the conditions that result in an officer being in a non-promotable status. Included in this list are officers who are or should be under suspension of favorable personnel actions and those who are documented as overweight. The promotions of officers in a non-promotable status are automatically delayed. When a delay in promotion is ended, the promotion approval authority will determine if the officer was, in fact, unqualified (as opposed to ineligible) for promotion during all or part of the delay and will adjust the DOR and effective date of promotion accordingly. For officers whose promotions are delayed for noncompliance with height/weight standards, the date of rank and effective date of promotion will be the day the officers meet the standards. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request to adjust his 1LT DOR to 28 October 2010 has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this request. 2. The evidence of record is void of any information related to the delay in the applicant's promotion or to the flagging action that was imposed against him. Further, as indicated in the HRC advisory opinion, the final flag provided by the applicant contains a "close code" that is not consistent with the failure to meet height weight standards. Absent evidence to the contrary and given that HRC promotions branch confirms it promoted the applicant on the date his command confirmed his eligibility, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 3. The applicant is advised that if he presents sufficient evidence that he was eligible for promotion earlier than the date he was promoted to his Personnel Administrative office, his request may be readdressed through normal personnel channels to HRC. 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 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) AR20110018218 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110018218 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1