IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160010810 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160010810 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing orders to amend the date of his transfer to the Active Duty List to 27 November 2015, along with his first lieutenant active date of rank to 27 November 2015. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the effective date of promotion to first lieutenant (for pay and allowances). ___________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160010810 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 correction of his promotion eligibility date (PED) for first lieutenant (1LT)/pay grade O-2 to 29 November 2015 (instead of 13 July 2016). 2. The applicant states he is an Enlisted Commissioning Program officer. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the rank of second lieutenant (2LT)/ pay grade O-1 through 15 May 2016. He met all the required criteria and was eligible for promotion 1LT; however, his name was omitted from the Reserve Promotion Scroll due to no fault of his own. a. He states that he contacted the U.S. Army Human (USA) Resources Command (HRC) numerous times to check on the status of his promotion (during the period November 2015 to January 2016) and was told that he would receive his promotion orders approximately 120 days after the promotion scroll was approved. However, another officer with the same situation as his was promoted to 1LT in February 2016. It was during a follow-up call in February that he learned that his name had been omitted from the Reserve Promotion Scroll. He adds that he continued to work with USA HRC to correct his promotion. b. On 16 May 2016, he entered active duty as a Regular Army (RA) commissioned officer and was then told that he could no longer be promoted under the Reserve Promotion Scroll. His name was placed on the Active Duty Promotion Scroll in June 2016. c. He states that, once the Active Duty Promotion Scroll is approved, the effective date of his promotion should be 29 November 2015. 3. The applicant provides copies of an Integrated Web System (IWS) "screen shot" and email messages. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant had prior honorable enlisted service in the Army National Guard (ARNG) of the United States (ARNGUS) and the Georgia ARNG (GAARNG) from 5 March 2013 through 30 May 2014. 2. First Brigade, U.S Army Cadet Command, Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program, Milledgeville, GA, memorandum, dated 8 May 2014, appointed the applicant as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the rank of 2LT, on 31 May 2014. 3. First Brigade, U.S Army Cadet Command, Milledgeville, GA, memorandum, dated 16 May 2016, appointed the applicant as a RA commissioned officer, in the rank of 2LT, on 16 May 2016. 4. In support of his application the applicant provides the following documents. a. An IWS "screen shot" (undated) that shows his grade as "2LT" and a date of rank (DOR) of 31 May 2014. b. Email messages between the applicant's unit administrator and USA HRC officials spanning the period 7 January 2016 to 16 February 2016, pertaining to the applicant's promotion to 1LT with a PEB of 29 November 2015. (The essential message from the unit administrator to USA HRC was basically a summary of the situation as presented by the applicant in his application to this Board.) c. Email messages between the applicant and a USA HRC official spanning the period 3 May to 19 May 2016, pertaining to the processing of the applicant's name on the promotion scroll. The messages show his name was added (in March 2016) to the quarterly (Reserve) Promotion Scroll. On 19 May 2016, the USA HRC official inquired, "Are you currently Regular Army? If so, I cannot promote [you] to 1LT as a Reserve if your category is Active Army. You may wish to contact the Active Army Branch to determine if they will accept the Reserve scroll, once it is approved." 5. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions, Special Actions, USA HRC, Fort Knox, KY. a. The official states that based on a review of USA HRC records, systems, and the information provided, the applicant's request for promotion to 1LT with a DOR of 27 November 2015 [sic] has merit. b. The advisory official noted the delay in the applicant's promotion was not due to any fault of the applicant and may have been caused by an initial systems error that did not recognize his correct Basic Active Service Date, Oath of Original Appointment, entry on the Reserve Active Status List, and Screening Requirements (for Adverse and Reportable Information for Promotion and Federal Recognition to Colonel and below) as directed by the Secretary of the Army. c. He stated the promotion of Reserve Officers' Training Program (ROTC) graduates who accept appointment in May or June of any year is computed from the date of graduation of cadets of the United States Military Academy (USMA) for that year (in this case, 28 May 2014). Therefore, the applicant was eligible for promotion to 1LT on 27 November 2015 (unless proven otherwise ineligible). d. He noted the Secretary of Defense approved the Reserve appointment scroll containing the applicant's name on 13 July 2016; however, the applicant elected appointment to the Active Duty List (ADL), on 16 May 2016, prior to the scroll approval date. He is now pending promotion to 1LT under ADL rules. Had the Special Actions office been informed that he was considering appointment to active duty, he would have been informed (or the recommendation would have been made) that he delay the action until his (Reserve) promotion to 1LT was completed. e. Per Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14308 (10 USC 14308), the effective date of the applicant's promotion cannot be earlier than scroll approval date. Accordingly, USA HRC recommends the applicant's DOR be corrected to his reserve PED of 27 November 2015, along with correction of the date of his transfer to the ADL. f. The advisory official states the recommendation would not violate 10 USC 14308 or 10 USC 624 and allows the applicant seniority on the ADL per Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) and 10 USC 741. 6. On 31 May 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity (15 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. 10 USC 531 (Original appointments of commissioned officers), paragraph a(1), shows, in pertinent part, original appointments in the grades of 2LT, 1LT, and captain in the RA shall be made by the President alone. 2. 10 USC 624 (Promotions: how made), paragraph a(2), in pertinent part, shows officers to be promoted to the grade of 1LT shall be promoted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned. 3. Executive Order 13384, dated 27 July 2005 (Assignment of Functions Relating to Original Appointments as Commissioned Officers and Chief Warrant Officer Appointments in the Armed Forces), section 1, shows that the Secretary of Defense shall perform the functions of the President under the following provisions of Title 10, USC: subsection 531(a)(1) and the second sentence of subsection 571(b). 4. Army Regulation 600-8-29 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of Army commissioned and warrant officers on the ADL. Chapter 3 (Managing Promotions to 1LT and Chief Warrant Officer Two) shows in: a. paragraph 3-1 (Rules for computing PED to 1LT) the PED will be computed according to the rules given in Table 3-1. The following dates will be the PED to 1LT: * 18 months of active duty (AD) service as a 2LT on the ADL. If the officer's source of commission is the ROTC, AD service commences on the year, month, and day the officer enters AD based on the computation of travel per the Joint Federal Travel Regulation. * An exception to this will be an ROTC graduate who is appointed and enters AD in the month of May or June of the same year. His/Her PED will be 18 months from the USMA graduation of the year the officer entered AD. b. Table 3-1, Rule 1, shows for an ROTC graduate whose original date of appointment is May or June and the date entered on AD is May or June of the year appointed: * the 2LT DOR is the USMA main graduation date * PED to 1LT is 18 months from USMA main graduation date DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to 1LT (O-2) with a PED of 29 November 2015. 2. The source of the applicant's appointment was ROTC. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the rank of 2LT, on 31 May 2014. 3. The evidence of record shows his DOR/PED should have been adjusted to 28 May 2014; however, for reasons that are not clear, it was not. 4. The evidence of record also shows his promotion to 1LT was delayed (until at least 13 July 2016). This delay was a result of the Reserve Promotion Scroll process and data errors related to pertinent service dates; however, it was not due to the fault of the applicant. a. In the meantime, on 16 May 2016, the applicant was appointed as an RA commissioned officer, in the rank of 2LT. b. It was subsequently discovered that the applicant's PED for promotion to 1LT was actually 27 November 2015 (vice 29 November 2015). 5. The effective date for promotion to 1LT cannot be modified because that would effectively amend the Secretary of Defense's action, which is beyond the authority of the USA HRC and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 6. The Board may recommend correction of the applicant's records to show he was transferred to the ADL on 27 November 2015 and promoted to 1LT in the RA with an Active DOR of 27 November 2015. However, in this case, this recommendation would not extend to the effective date of the applicant's promotion to 1LT. In other words, he cannot be paid as a 1LT until 13 July 2016, the date the Secretary of Defense approved the scroll. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160010810 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160010810 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2