ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 21 November 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170003994 APPLICANT REQUESTS: amendment of her orders to reflect the results of her special selection board (SSB) to show her rank changed from Captain to Major. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) memorandum * Order #D 187-10 published by the USAPDA * Memorandum published by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command * Email string during the period from 28 November 2016 to 9 February 2017 FACTS: 1. The applicant states she requested the SSB for fiscal year (FY) 2015 while processing through a physical evaluation board (PEB). The SSB was granted and still pending when she was medically retired on 9 August 2016. The results of the SSB were published after her retirement. 2. The applicant provides the following: a. Memorandum, dated 5 July 2016, published by the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) advising the applicant she was being permanently retired with a disability rating of 60%. Her rank was captain (CPT). b. Order #D 187-10, dated 5 July 2016, published by the USAPDA advising the applicant she was released from her assignment and duty because of her physical disability, which was received/incurred in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war during a period of war, and resulted from a combat related injury. The order shows her rank/grade of CPT/0-3, and placement on the retired list 9 August 2016. c. Memorandum, dated 23 November 2016, published by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY that shows the applicant was considered by the SSB and selected for promotion to the rank of Major. d. Email conversation during the period from 28 November 2016 to 9 February 2017 between the applicant and Mr. X_ X_, human resource analyst, Fort Sill, OK transition center, and the applicant and Ms. X_ X_, customer service representative, retirements and separations branch, USAPDA. The conversation discusses the applicant’s follow- up process and requirements for correction of her records, publishing of the promotion order, and other requirements following her selection for promotion. 3. A review of the applicant’s Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) record shows the following: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 1993. b. She enlisted in the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) on 28 February 1996. c. On 20 December 2004, she applied for federal recognition as a second lieutenant in the OKARNG. d. NGB Form 22, (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows she completed 8 years, 9 months, and 28 days of service as an enlisted Soldier during the period from 20 April 1996 to 17 February 2005. She separated with the rank of sergeant (SGT) in order to be appointed as a reserve commissioned officer. Her total service for retired pay was 11 years, 8 months, and 2 days. e. On 17 February 2005, she accepted her appointment as a reserve commissioned officer and executed her oath of office as a second lieutenant. f. Special orders # 82 AR, dated 15 March 2005, published by the National Guard Bureau, Washington, D. C. announced her federal recognition as a second lieutenant. g. On 16 July 2013, the OKARNG published the applicant’s notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (20 year letter). h. On 27 April 2015, the OKARNG published the applicant’s notification of selection for retention by the FY 2015 SSB. i. NGB Form 22, (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows she completed 11 years, 5 months, and 23 days of service as a reserve commissioned officer during the period from 17 February 2005 to 9 August 2016. She separated with the rank of captain (CPT) due to a medical, physical or mental condition. Her total service for retired pay was 22 years. j. Memorandum, dated 5 July 2016, published by the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) advising the applicant she was being permanently retired with a disability rating of 60%. Her rank was captain (CPT). k. Order #D 187-10, dated 5 July 2016, published by the USAPDA advising the applicant she was released from her assignment and duty because of her physical disability, which was received/incurred in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war during a period of war, and resulted from a combat related injury. The order shows her rank/grade of CPT/0-3, and placement on the retired list 9 August 2016. l. Orders # 223-031, dated 10 August 2016, published by the OKARNG shows her rank as CPT when she was honorably retired on 9 August 2016. m. Memorandum, dated 23 November 2016, published by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY that shows the applicant was considered by the SSB and selected for promotion to the rank of Major. 4. By regulation, Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of both the Army National Guard of the United States and the USAR and warrant officers of the USAR The Commander, HRC, Chief, Office of Promotions, is the approval authority for exceptions to non-statutory promotion requirements. 5. AR 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), SSB may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned officers for promotion because the officer was erroneously not considered and his/her records contained a material error at the time of consideration. The reasons for the applicant’s non selection are unknown because the statute prevents disclosure of these proceedings to anyone outside the promotion board in question. The decision to recommend an officer for promotion was based upon the criteria established by the Secretary of the Army and the collective judgment of the respective board members as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief was warranted. Board members noted that a memorandum, dated 23 November 2016, published by HRC provided by the applicant shows the applicant was considered by the SSB and selected for promotion to the rank of Major. Board members voted to direct HRC to amend her disability orders to show she retired in the grade of Major. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 X: X: X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 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 her disability retirement orders to show she retired in the rank of major effective 9 August 2016. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of both the Army National Guard of the United States and the USAR and warrant officers of the USAR. It provides that the military education requirement for promotion to MAJ is the completion of any officer advanced course not later than the day before the selection board convening date. The Commander, HRC, Chief, Office of Promotions, is the approval authority for exceptions to non-statutory promotion requirements. 2. AR 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), SSB may be convened to consider or reconsider commissioned officers for promotion because the officer was erroneously not considered and his/her records contained a material error at the time of consideration. The reasons for the applicant’s non selection are unknown because the statute prevents disclosure of these proceedings to anyone outside the promotion board in question. The decision to recommend an officer for promotion was based upon the criteria established by the Secretary of the Army and the collective judgment of the respective board members as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered. NOTHING FOLLOWS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170003994 5 1