IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018381 BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ ___x___ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018381 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending Order Number 313-002, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, on 8 November 2016, to show he was promoted to first lieutenant with an effective date and date of rank as 2 October 2016 and then authorizing payment of all back pay and allowances as a result of these corrections. ___________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: 1 March 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018381 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 effective date of promotion and date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant (1LT) from 10 October 2016 to 4 October 2016. 2. The applicant states his DOR to second lieutenant (2LT) was 4 April 2015 (i.e., 2 April 2015). He received his promotion orders to 1LT showing his date of rank as 10 October 2016 instead of 4 October 2016. According to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) promotion branch, they could not produce the orders because they were waiting for the scroll. He was advised to apply to this Board. He believes he should not be responsible for the late promotion orders because it was an administration delay. 3. The applicant provides: * DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel) * Orders 13-194-A-246-A01 (Appointment Order) * Order Number 313-002 (Promotion Order) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed a Regular Army commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 2 April 2015. 2. Order 13-194-A-246, issued by HRC on 6 April 2015 named him as a graduate of the Officer Candidate School Class of 2013 (amended to show 2015) and appointed him as a 2LT in the Regular Army. 3. He completed the Aerial Delivery and Materiel Officer Course from 16 November to 18 December 2015. 4. Order Number 313-002, issued by HRC on 8 November 2016 promoted him to 1LT with an effective date and DOR of 10 October 2016. 5. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was received from HRC on 20 April 2017. An advisory official stated: a. Based on a review of the records, systems, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), and the information provided, HRC finds the applicant’s request to adjust his 1LT DOR does have merit in part. AR 600-8-29, Table 3-1, affirms that in his case, he should have been promoted to 1LT with a DOR and effective date of 2 October 2016 (unless proven to be otherwise ineligible) if not for an "unusual delay." b. The reason for the unusual delay in appointment may have included but may not have been limited to: (1) an incorrect entry data during assessment on the Active Duty List; (2) an initial administrative or system(s) error that did not correctly calculate or recognize him as eligible for scroll appointment, approval, and promotion; (3) a delay due in part to the screening requirement for adverse and reportable information for promotion and Federal recognition to colonel and below, which was later packaged and released as Army Directive 2016-26 (Screening Requirements for Adverse and Reportable Information for Promotion and Federal Recognition to Colonel and Below); Department of Defense Instruction 1320.04 (Military Officer Actions Requiring Presidential, Secretary of Defense, or Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Approval or Senate Confirmation); and Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3583 (Requirement of Exemplary Conduct). c. The applicant was not denied appointment to 1LT; therefore, HRC recommends that he be granted full relief and his DOR and effective date be retroactive to his promotion eligibility date of 2 October 2016, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 741(Rank Commissioned Officer) based under an "unusual delay" as it should apply. 6. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion on 1 May 2017. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-8-29 prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. Paragraph 1-10 states, as established by the Secretary of the Army under Title 10, U.S. Code sections 573, 574, and 619, officers must meet the minimum time in grade requirements to be considered for promotion. For 2LT and 1LT, the law establishes no minimum time in grade requirements for consideration for promotion; however, an officer must have at least 18 months of time in grade to be promoted to 1LT. 2. Title 10, USC, section 741 (Rank: Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces) states in sub-paragraph d(4): a. The Secretary concerned may adjust the date of rank of an officer appointed under section 624(a) of this title to a higher grade that is not a general officer or flag officer grade if the appointment of that officer to that grade is delayed from the date on which (as determined by the Secretary) it would otherwise have been made by reason of unusual circumstances (as determined by the Secretary) that cause an unintended delay in (i) the processing or approval of the report of the selection board recommending the appointment of that officer to that grade; or (ii) the processing or approval of the promotion list established on the basis of that report. b. The adjusted DOR applicable to the grade of an officer under subparagraph (A) shall be consistent (i) with the officer’s position on the promotion list for that grade and competitive category when additional officers in that grade and competitive category were needed; and (ii) with compliance with the applicable authorized strengths for officers in that grade and competitive category. c. The adjusted DOR applicable to the grade of an officer under subparagraph (A) shall be the effective date for (i) the officer’s pay and allowances for that grade; and (ii) the officer’s position on the Active Duty List. DISCUSSION: The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Army on 2 April 2015. He met the time in grade requirements and was fully eligible for promotion to 1LT on 2 October 2016 based on 18 months' time in grade as a 2LT, not 4 October 2016 as he stated in his application. For unknown reasons, he was promoted to 1LT on 10 October 2016. The delay in his promotion was due to what appears to be an administrative oversight. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160018381 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160018381 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2