IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 May 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007352 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a personal appearance before the Board via telephone/video and reconsideration of her previous request to correct her Army National Guard (ARNG) military records to show – * she completed 6 years of ARNG service * she was separated in the rank of captain (CPT) vice first lieutenant (1LT) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Character reference letters FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20210008816 on 3 December 2021. 2. The applicant states: a. She is requesting correction of her military record to provide a full six years of service in the ARNG. Also, she was due for promotion to CPT prior to her discharge and she is requesting that she be promoted with an effective date prior to her expected discharge of 5 October 2018. b. This correction should be made because it was an unjust act towards her. She had several conversations with her unit leadership about her pending promotion and informed them of her decision to not renew "after" her contract was ending. She informed her leadership that she wanted to inform them of the decision ahead of time so they would have time to re-fill her position. Her integrity to her leadership team has cost her now that she must work to gain back the time that was taken from her, and this is completely unfair. Had she known she would not have been able to serve her full time and receive credit for her full service and her rank she would have not said anything to anyone until her contract was complete and she should not have to have that mindset when she spoke up early to try to help her unit. c. She did not receive any administrative counseling about being released early although she stated she wanted to remain in service until her contract was completed. This time was taken from her unjustly as well as the rank she worked for, and this issue should be corrected. When she was informed that she was being released early no one from her leadership team spoke to her. She received this news in the women's bathroom when she reported for drill. She took an oath to serve, protect and defend the country and she was ready and willing to uphold her end of that oath but was cheated out of the time unfairly and unjustly. This issue cost her the honor, respect, integrity and even benefits that she would otherwise be privy to had she been afforded the opportunity to serve her full time and receive her full rank. d. The delay for her seeking correction is not having prior knowledge of how her time in service would affect her in the long run. She now serves veterans for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and after counseling other veterans on their cases she knew she needed to seek correction for herself. The Board should approve this request in the honor of justice and integrity. The same integrity that she showed throughout her years of service should be shown back to her. She was released with an honorable discharge, and she earned every year she served and should be credited for such service and with the proper rank that she worked for. 3. A review of the applicant's military record shows the following: a. She served in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG) in an enlisted status from 23 October 2012 to 7 August 2013, completing 9 months and 15 days of enlisted ARNG service. b. She served a period of active duty from 22 January 2013 to 7 August 2013, and completed Officer Candidate School. c. She was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the MOARNG in the rank of second lieutenant (2LT)/O-1 on 8 August 2013, and executed an oath of office. d. She entered and completed the Ordnance Basic Officer Leader Course from 29 September 2013 to 14 February 2014. e. On 12 February 2015, Orders Number 043-044 issued by the Joint Force Headquarters promoted her to 1LT, 8 February 2015. f. On 29 June 2015, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) published Special Orders Number 135 AR extending her Federal recognition for promotion to 1LT, effective on with a date of rank of 8 February 2015. g. On 4 January 2018 – (1) She submitted a request for resignation as an officer in the MOARNG under Army Regulation (AR) 135-175 (Officer Separations), due to personal and professional reasons, to be effective upon approval of her request. Her chain of command recommended approval. (2) DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) shows she was counseled pertaining to her request for resignation. She was informed that upon discharge from the MOARNG, incentive payments would be suspended and recouped in accordance with contractual agreements, and she would not be eligible to receive State or Federal tuition assistance. h. On 29 March 2018, The MOARNG Adjutant General approved her resignation and directed she be honorably separated from the MOARNG on 1 May 2018. i. On 30 March 2018, Headquarters, MOARNG, published Orders Number 089-268 ordering her honorable discharge from the ARNG, effective 1 May 2018, in the rank of 1LT by reason of "Resignation Request" under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 635-100 (Termination of Appointment and Withdrawal of Federal Recognition). j. The NGB published Special Orders Number 85 withdrawing Federal recognition, effective 1 May 2018. There is no NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) on file or provided by the applicant. However, her NGB Form 23A1 (ARNG Current Annual Statement) shows she completed 5 years, 6 months, and 9 days of total ARNG service. k. There is no evidence in the record and the applicant provides none to show: (1) She was recommended for promotion to CPT by her State or had an approved scroll by the Secretary of Defense or was extended Federal recognition in that rank. (2) She performed any ARNG or U.S. Army Reserve duties beyond her separation date of 1 May 2018 that would have earned her total service of 6 years. l. On 3 December 2021, the ABCMR voted unanimously to deny the applicant's requests to show she completed 6 years of ARNG service and was separated in the rank of CPT. m. In conjunction with the Board decision in ABCMR Docket Number AR20210008816, on 24 February 2022, the NGB, Chief, Special Actions Branch, provided an advisory opinion for this case and recommended disapproval. The advisory official stated: (1) The applicant includes within her ABCMR application her personal memorandum request for resignation from the MOARNG dated 4 January 2018. In paragraph 1 of the resignation letter, the applicant states, " [the applicant], 1LT, , , hereby tender my resignation as an officer in the MOARNG under the provisions of AR 135-175, to be effective upon approval of my request." (2) She did not provide a specific date for her resignation to be effective. The applicant's resignation request was endorsed by the battalion commander and signed on 4 January 2018. The battalion commander's letter also has no mention of a specific effective date. (3) In correspondence dated 29 March 2018, The Adjutant General of the MOARNG accepted the applicant's resignation and directed she be separated with an effective date of 1 May 2018. (4) Based on the documents contained in the applicant's application for correction, there is insufficient evidence to support that the effective date of discharge was not administratively just. Furthermore, she failed to provide any documentation to support her claim that she requested or was required to be discharged on a later date. Upon approval of her resignation, no further action was required to continue with the processing of a promotion to the next higher grade. Therefore, it is the recommendation of this office [the NGB] that the applicant's request be disapproved. n. On 25 February 2022, she responded to the NGB advisory opinion and stated, in pertinent part: (1) She did not provide a date for her resignation to be effective because she was under the impression that she would be fulfilling her full contractual service obligation of 6 years. Her leadership failed to properly counsel her on providing an effective date of resignation. If she had the proper counsel, she would have had the opportunity to state she wanted and planned to fulfill her full 6-year term. The Adjutant General chose an effective date of 1 May 2018 for her without her being able to provide any say in the matter. The decision was made for her therefore stripping her of the opportunity to fulfill said obligation of 6 years. (2) Furthermore, her very own leadership ensured her that she would be promoted to the rank of CPT before she was released from service. Her leadership talked with her about inviting her family and close friends to come down and be a part of the ceremony for the promotion to the rank of CPT. (3) She signed her tendered resignation with the understanding that she would still be fulfilling the full 6-year service term. She never stated or asked for an early release. She even spoke with her leadership and stated, after her 6-year term is up she did not wish to sign another contract. She was released 5 months early from the date she originally signed up to fulfill her duties. (4) She had a packet in for promotion to CPT, and assurance from her leadership that she was getting the promotion. Why would she serve 5 years consecutively and then risk 5 months to forgo the promotion? Lastly, the way she was informed of her release followed no protocol or chain of command. 4. In support of her reconsideration request, the applicant provides character reference letters attesting to her being an exemplary employee, teammate, and leader. They also state she worked in a key position during critical mission planning and execution including the movement of tons of explosives across the United States without incident. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found relief is not warranted. The Board found the available evidence sufficient to consider this case fully and fairly without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board found the applicant’s discharge was executed properly. The Board found no evidence indicating she should have been promoted to CPT prior to her resignation. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined her length of service and her rank upon separation were not in error or unjust. ? 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20210008816 on 3 December 2021. 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. AR 15–185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. In pertinent part, it states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR will decide cases based on the evidence of record. The ABCMR is not an investigative agency. Paragraph 2-11 states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. NGR 600-100 (Personnel - General, Commissioned Officers Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions), prescribes policies and procedures governing the appointment, assignment, temporary Federal Recognition, Federal Recognition, reassignment, transfers between States, branch transfers, area of concentration designation, utilization, branch detail, and attachment of commissioned officers of the ARNG. The promotion of officers in the ARNG is a function of the State. As in original appointments, a commissioned officer promoted by State authorities has a State status in the higher grade under which to function. However, to be extended Federal Recognition in the higher grade, the officer must have satisfied the requirements prescribed herein. National Guard officers may be considered and found qualified for Federal Recognition of their State promotion using two distinct processes: State Federal Recognition Boards and Department of the Army (DA) Mandatory Boards. Under either process, the precedent for an actual promotion in the ARNG is State assignment and appointment to the next higher grade. a. State Federal Recognition Boards (FRB). Officers may be federally recognized through State FRB which are often referred to as "State vacancy promotion boards" or "unit vacancy boards" as part the Unit Vacancy Promotion (UVP) process under Title 32 U.S. Code (USC), section 307. b. DA Mandatory Boards. The second way to federally recognize the State promotion is through the DA Mandatory Promotion Selection Boards process. Mandatory promotion selection boards are convened by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to Title 10, USC, section 14101(a). Those National Guard officers selected ("DA Select") by a DA mandatory board who are then appointed by the State in that higher grade to fill a vacancy in the Army National Guard are extended Federal Recognition in that grade, without the examination prescribed by Title 32, USC, section 307 (see Title 10, USC, section 14316). 3. NGR 635-100 (Termination of Appointment and Withdrawal of Federal Recognition) prescribes the policies, criteria and procedures governing the separation of commissioned officers of the Army National Guard. a. Paragraph 5a (Termination of State appointment) states, unless contrary to State law and regulations, the appointment of an ARNG officer should be terminated for resignation. b. Paragraph 5a(3)a (Resignation) provides that, an officer may tender a resignation through channels to the State Adjutant General. If accepted, the State Adjutant General will publish orders separating the officer from his/her ARNG appointment and furnish copies to the Chief, National Guard Bureau. The resignation may also be concurrent from the ARNG and Reserve of the Army for officers without a remaining obligation. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220007352 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1