BOARD DATE: 24 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140015554 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 date of rank (DOR) from first lieutenant to captain from 25 July 2014 to 4 February 2014. 2. The applicant states: a. The State federal recognition board for captain was held on 22 October 2013 and her promotion packet was submitted to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) on 28 October 2013. b. It was her understanding that this was also the month NGB converted to a new tracking system for promotion packets known as the eTracker versus the Guard Knowledge Online (GKO) electronic submission process. c. NGB remained focused on processing the remaining promotion packets through the GKO before they touched anything in eTracker, which in turn delayed promotions by a minimum of 2 months. d. Her promotion packet was not returned to the State and that is how the State G-1 office would track it if there are issues with her captain promotion packet. e. There were officers that had their captain promotion packets submitted at the same time as hers and they were promoted as early as February 2014. f. Her most recent inquiry revealed that NGB pulled her packet based on what they believed were adverse actions, but after further review, they could not tell her why her promotion packet to captain had been pulled or delayed. The end result was that there was nothing wrong with her promotion packet, yet her promotion was unjustly delayed. 3. The applicant provides: * NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 22 October 2013 * Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG) email, dated 8 May 2014 * GAARNG email, dated 25 August 2014 * GAARNG email, dated 7 May 2014 * Special Orders Number 214 AR, dated 31 July 2014 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. With prior enlisted service, the applicant accepted an appointment in the GAARNG on 8 August 2009, in the rank of second lieutenant. She was promoted to first lieutenant on 8 February 2011. 2. The applicant provides an NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board), dated 22 October 2013, showing she was qualified for promotion to captain and was in a valid duty position requiring a captain/O-3. She provides an email from GAARNG officials explaining the problems that occurred with her promotion packet and the steps required to process her promotion packet. The official also stated that promotions to captain were scrolled and he was advised by NGB officials that her promotion packet to captain should be on the scroll Promotion List (PL) 08-14. As informed by NGB officials, the applicant’s promotion packet was scrolled and she was promoted by Special Orders Number 214 AR showing she was extended Federal Recognition and promoted to captain in the GAARNG with an effective date and DOR of 25 July 2014. Her promotion to captain as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army was also effective the same date. She was advised by email to apply to this Board to request an adjustment to her DOR. 3. In a memorandum from the GAARNG Chief, Officer Personnel Branch (OPB), dated 26 June 2015, the Chief, Army NGB, Personnel and Policy Readiness Division was informed that they are of the opinion that the applicant should be granted relief in her request to this Board. The Chief, OPB states: a. The applicant's promotion packet was submitted to the NGB on 28 October 2013, which was also the month of the implementation of eTracker. Promotion packets had previously been submitted to NGB using GKO. (The Federal Recognition application system, which was supported by GKO, lost its accreditation in October 2013. That led to the use of eTracker, a G1 Portal website for accountability of promotion packets.) b. Promotion packets that were submitted during this transition period at NGB were delayed approximately 2 months. c. Their office was advised that NGB held the applicant's packet during the processing period for adverse information and upon further review, it was determined that it was held erroneously. d. The official stated the applicant's DOR is 25 July 2014 and recommended an adjustment of her DOR to 25 May 2014 based on the delayed processing of her promotion packet by NGB. 4. During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB, Personnel Policy Division recommending approval of the applicant's request for an adjustment of her DOR to 4 February 2014 with all applicable back pay and allowances. The NGB cited extraordinary delays caused by system and administrative errors that were no fault of the applicant as a basis for the recommendation. The Deputy Chief, Personnel Policy Division states: a. A State Federal Recognition Board held on 22 October 2013 found the applicant eligible for promotion to captain. b. The applicant's promotion packet was submitted to NGB on 28 October 2013. NGB transitioned to a new system in October 2013 and this caused a 2 month delay in processing her promotion packet. c. NGB then held her promotion packet during the processing period for alleged adverse action, which was done erroneously. Her promotion packet re-entered the promotion process at NGB in July 2014. This administrative error contributed to an additional delay of approximately 3 months. d. The applicant was promoted to captain with a DOR and effective DOR of 25 July 2014. e. Her promotion packet took 271 days, or approximately 9 months from submission to her date of promotion. Normal processing time for a Federal Recognition packet is 90 to 120 days. The system transition and administrative delays at NGB contributed to approximately a 5 month delay. The applicant's packet should have been on the PL03-14 Federal Recognition scroll, which would have given her a DOR of 4 February 2014. It would be equitable to adjust the effective DOR and DOR from 25 July to 4 February 2014 as requested by the applicant. 5. Copies of the advisory opinion and the GAARNG memorandum were provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. She responded by letter agreeing with the advisory opinion from NGB and disagreeing with the memorandum from GAARNG, dated 26 June 2015. 6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14038, paragraph (f), states the effective date of a promotion of a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army who is extended Federal recognition in the next higher grade in the Army National Guard under section 307 or 310 of Title 32 shall be the date on which such Federal Recognition in that grade is so extended. 7. Title 10, United States Code, section 14308(c)(2) states that ?Except as specifically authorized by law, a Reserve officer is not entitled to additional pay or allowances if the effective date of the officer’s promotion is adjusted to reflect a date earlier than the actual date of the officer’s promotion.? 8. National Guard Regulation 600-100 (Commissioned Officers – Federal Recognition), chapter 8, establishes the policies and procedures for promotion of officers in the ARNG. The regulation states that until Federal Recognition in the new rank is extended by the NGB, the individual cannot be promoted and paid in the higher rank. The NGB has advised in similar cases such as this that recommendations for promotion must be processed through NGB staff to obtain approval of the promotion by the President. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The available evidence shows she submitted her promotion packet in a timely manner and, through no fault of her own, her promotion packet was held up for approximately 9 months due to an administrative error and processing delays. Due to lack of system accreditation, the NGB changed promotion tracking systems during the period the applicant’s captain promotion packet was processed. 2. The evidence shows that a federal recognition board held on 22 October 2013 found her eligible for promotion to captain. Had it not been for these administrative delays, the applicant's packet was projected for scrolling on the PL03-14 Federal Recognition scroll, which would have established her DOR as 4 February 2014. 3. It is noted that there is no provision of law applicable to adjust the effective date of promotion, as in doing so would amend an action by the Secretary of the Defense. The Board does not have the authority to correct actions by the Secretary of Defense. However, it would be in the interest of justice to correct her records to show her DOR for promotion to captain as 4 February 2014. This change does not affect the effective DOR, i.e., the date she was authorized pay and allowances in the higher grade. BOARD VOTE: ___X_____ __X______ __X__ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and State Army National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing she was extended Federal Recognition and promoted to captain with a DOR of 4 February 2014. _______ _ 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) AR20140015554 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140015554 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1