ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 27 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170015989 APPLICANT REQUESTS: to change his date of rank to Major (MAJ)/O4, effective 25 September 2015, from 27 April 2016. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Applicant’s self-authored statement * Commander’s signature-authority memorandum, dated 22 April 2014 * DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment), dated 6 August 2014 * Proof of Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) Assessment, dated 19 April 2016 * Proof of Dental Exam, dated 27 April 2016 * Applicant’s special selection board result notification, dated 10 May 2016 * DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 22 July 2016 * DA Form 268, dated 15 September 2016 * AHRC-PRO Orders, B-09-604111, dated 29 September 2016 * DA Form 268, dated 20 October 2016 * DA Form 268, dated 31 October 2016 FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) erroneously omitted him from his Primary Zone’s 2015 Major (MAJ) Board and a special selection board (SSB) corrected the error by selecting him for a retroactive promotion. He states the approval date of the 2015 MAJ, Army Promotion List (APL) board was 25 September 2015 and his Date of Rank (DOR) as a MAJ should have been 25 September 2015, as he was already serving in an O4 (MAJ) slot since 1 August 2014. b. His unit erroneously-flagged him for delinquent dental readiness and as result limiting his DOR to the flag removal date (27 April 2016), as opposed to 25 September 2015. He states he was in compliance at the time and was never informed or counseled about the issuance of the flag. Therefore, he adds, he was never given an opportunity to submit a proof of compliance. c. His unit removed the flag with a code of "Other" and he adds he had to fight to have it corrected to reflect the Gospel Truth, which was their "Error." Lastly, he references an attached memo that details the list of events and the supporting documentation for the Board’s review. 2. The applicant provides: a. A self-authored statement to the Board, where the applicant detailed the sequence of events related to both discrepancies summarized below. He states: (1). HRC erroneously-omitted him from his zone’s 2015 MAJ Board, and an SSB corrected this error by selecting him for a retroactive promotion. The approval date of the 2015 MAJ, APL board was 25 September 2015 and my Date of Rank as a MAJ should have been 25 September 2015, as he was already serving in an O4 slot since 1 August 2014. (2). His unit erroneously-flagged him for periodic health assessment (PHA) and dental delinquency and as result limited his DOR to the flag removal date 27 April 2016, as supposed to 25 September 2015. b. A memorandum, dated 22 April 2014, appointing LTC K____n L___ A_____o to have signature authority for the applicant’s commander, effective 20 May 2014. c. DA Form 4651, showing the applicant requested a voluntary reassignment, effective 1 October 2014, under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers). d. Proof of a PHA Assessment (Voucher # 6241144), verifies the applicant was present for a health assessment on 19 April 2016. The verification was signed and dated by the applicant and a member of the medical staff. e. Proof of a dental exam and dental x-ray (Voucher # 6241145), verifies the applicant was present for a dental exam and x-ray on 27 April 2016. The verification was signed and dated by the applicant and signed by a member of the dental staff. f. A memorandum, dated 10 May 2016, providing results of a SSB (SSB RS 1512-02) (FY 15). The applicant was notified that he was selected for promotion to MAJ under the criteria and instructions established for the regularly constituted FY 15, MAJ, Army Reserve (AR) Non-Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), promotion selection board. The memorandum further stated the applicant would receive promotion orders at a later date. g. DA Form 268, dated 22 July 2016, shows in Item 9 (This Action Is To), a flag was being removed. Section III (Remove a Flag), Item 11 shows a flag code of “A” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Other Final Action”. h. DA Form 268, dated 15 September 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “A” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Case Closed Favorably”. i. Orders B-09-604111, dated 29 September 2016, issued by HRC, promoted the applicant to the rank and pay grade of MAJ/O4, with an effective date of 27 April 2016. j. DA Form 268, dated 20 October 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “X” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Case Closed Favorably”. k. DA Form 268, dated 31 October 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “X” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Erroneous”. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. Having had prior enlisted service, he was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 17 April 2004. b. A memorandums dated 14 December 2003 and 17 April 2004, appointed the applicant as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant, with the date of rank (DOR) of 17 April 2004. c. DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-Part II), Item 18, shows the applicant was promoted to the rank and pay grade of captain (CPT)/O3, with an effective DOR of 24 February 2009. d. DA Form 1380, dated 19 April 2016, shows the applicant performed 4 hours of reserve duty training to attend a scheduled medical appointment. e. DA Form 1380, dated 27 April 2016, shows the applicant performed 4 hours of reserve duty training to attend a scheduled medical appointment. f. DA Form 268, dated 22 July 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “A” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Other Final Action”. g. DA Form 268, dated 15 September 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “A” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Case Closed Favorably”. h. AHRC-Pro Orders B-09-604111, dated 29 September 2016, issued by HRC, promoted the applicant to the rank and pay grade of MAJ/O4, with an effective date of 27 April 2016. i. DA Form 268, dated 20 October 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “X” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Case Closed Favorably”. j. DA Form 268, dated 31 October 2016, shows in Item 9, a flag was being removed. Section III, Item 11 shows a flag code of “X” was removed, effective 27 April 2016, for the reason of “Erroneous”. k. The applicant is currently serving honorably in an active duty for operational support for Reserve Component (ADOS-RC) status, in the rank of MAJ/O4. 4. An advisory opinion, dated 26 March 2019, from HRC states, based on a review of the information provided, the records and systems available to HRC Officer Promotions, they found the applicant’s request to adjust his MAJ DOR did not have merit for the following reasons: a. The SSB the applicant references in his request, was completed in accordance within the established criteria, rules, guidelines and laws associated with the board and its process. Upon receipt of the final approved SSB results from Officer Promotions Special Actions, a review of HRC systems affirmed that the applicant was flagged for suspension of favorable action. They stated they can only speculate that the flag was effective before the promotion board approval date. Therefore as a promotable (flagged) officer, HRC placed its Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) (F) flag code on him as required. At this point HRC contacted his command to verify his ineligible promotion status and the current status of the flags. b. They stated they can only speculate that at this point, the applicant's command elected to close the flags and request he be promoted to MAJ. A review of the system and documents submitted for closure were for two flags (enclosed) with an effective, removal date of 27 April 2016, instead of only the one mentioned in his request. This is the earliest effective date and date of rank in which MAJ Ajani could receive based on the flag closures. 5. On 3 April 2019, the applicant was sent a copy of this advisory opinion. He responded on 30 April 2019 and stated: 6. On 30 April 2019, the applicant sent a memorandum and email reply to ARBA in response to the advisory opinion received from AHRC. Within the applicant’s response, he stated the following: a. HRC Officer Promotions advisory opinion that the applicant's requested to adjust his MAJ date or rank does not have merit is wrong. He quoted them “We can only speculate that the flag was effective before the promotion board approval date.” HRC promotion was working with what his unit erroneously or maliciously posted in the system. b. The unit flagged him erroneously for PHA compliance (Dental & Medical noncompliance, when in fact he complied). Per AR 600–8–2, flagging authority, the Units are required to notify Soldiers being flagged. He states he was never notified, otherwise, he states, he would have corrected them with proof of compliance. He references evidences in AR20170015989. c. When the above came to light, the unit had to remove the flag, but failed to remove the flag as error: (1) First DA 268 said "other final action" (not true, no other action needed or taken) and he challenged it ASAP. (2) Second Flag "code A" remover (DA 268) changed to "Case Closed Favorably" (not true, no other action needed or taken), and he states he challenged this too. (3) Third remover (DA 268), changed flag code to "X" and removal reason stayed as "Case Closed Favorably" (not true, no other action needed or taken), and he states he challenged this too. (4) Fourth remover (DA 268), left the flag code as "X" and removal reason changed to "Erroneous" (which is true, but why leave the effective date blank), and he states he challenged this too. At this point he states he went to the JAG, and it was the JAG that advise him to just file with the ABCMR. 7. By regulation, (AR 135-155 (Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve – Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers)), states, in part, a. To be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade, a USAR officer must have continuously performed service on the ADL during the 1-year period ending on the convening date of the promotion board, and must meet the time in grade requirements in tables 2-1 or 2-3 of this regulation as appropriate. b. Unless otherwise stated, the effective date of promotion may not precede the date of the promotion memorandum. An officer is promoted after selection if all qualifications for promotion are met. When an officer does not meet the qualifications for promotion, the effective date of promotion will not be earlier than the later date all qualifications are met. In no case, will the date of rank or effective date of promotion be earlier than the date the board is approved, or, if required, the date of Senate confirmation. 8. Scrolling is a function of the Secretary of Defense and it is not within the purview of this Board. All military officer appointments under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12203, in the Reserve of the Army not previously approved by 30 June 2005, including original appointments, shall also be submitted to the Secretary of Defense. The scroll is issued monthly. Scrolls take about 90 to 120 days to be approved by the Secretary of Defense due to the fact that the lists are processed through multiple offices before being approved by the Secretary of Defense. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the advisory opinion, and his rebuttal were carefully considered. Based upon the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and found within the applicant’s military service record, the Board concluded that by a preponderance of evidence there was insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice was present which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s date of rank. The advisory official’s recommendation noted relevant events that justified the delay in his promotion. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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. 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 135-155, provides, in part, a. Paragraph 2-5, to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade, a USAR officer must have continuously performed service on the ADL during the 1-year period ending on the convening date of the promotion board, and must meet the time in grade requirements in tables 2-1 or 2-3 of this regulation as appropriate. b. Paragraph 4-15, unless otherwise stated, the effective date of promotion may not precede the date of the promotion memorandum. An officer is promoted after selection if all qualifications for promotion are met. When an officer does not meet the qualifications for promotion, the effective date of promotion will not be earlier than the later date all qualifications are met. In no case, will the date of rank or effective date of promotion be earlier than the date the board is approved, or, if required, the date of Senate confirmation. 2. Executive Order 13358, Assignment of Functions Relating to Certain Appointments, Promotions, and Commissions in the Armed Forces, dated 30 September 2004. In this Executive Order, the White House has delegated authority of the President to appoint officers in the USAR to the Secretary of Defense with no further sub-delegation authorized. On 1 July 2005, the directive was issued that all officers appointed into the USAR must be on a "scroll" approved and signed by the Secretary of Defense before an Oath of Office can be initiated. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170015989 4 1