APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his reclassification to military occupational specialty (MOS) 250B be backdated to 30 April 1994 or earlier and that he receive promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of CW4.
APPLICANT STATES: That he submitted a request for reclassification from MOS 250A to MOS 250B on 28 January 1994 and his request was unjustly denied by his branch manager at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). He goes on to state that his records document his qualifications for reclassification to MOS 250B and his branch manager failed to properly assess those qualifications prior to disapproving his request based on the lack of documented formal training in his records. He further states that he resubmitted his request with documented evidence of his training and experience and it was subsequently approved on 7 October 1994. However, the fiscal year 1994 CW4 promotion selection board adjourned on 23 June 1994 and did not select him for promotion. He contends that had the PERSCOM properly approved his original request for reclassification, he would have been properly considered for promotion in MOS 250B instead of MOS 250A and most likely would have been selected for promotion. In support of his application he submits copies of his second request for reclassification with supporting documentation that includes his certificates of training.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After serving 14 years, 11 months, and 15 days of total active service, the applicant was honorably discharged on 18 January 1983 in the pay grade of E-7, for the purpose of accepting an appointment as a warrant officer.
On 19 January 1983 he was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one (WO1) with a concurrent call to active duty. He accepted an appointment in the Regular Army on 16 September 1987 and was promoted to the pay grade of CW3 on 1 May 1989.
On 28 January 1994 the applicant submitted a request for reclassification from MOS 250A to MOS 250B. He indicated that he met the qualifications for reclassification; however, there is no indication on his request that he submitted any enclosures with his application or documentation to support his request.
The PERSCOM disapproved his request on 14 February 1994 based on the lack of documented formal training and experience in his records.
The applicant again submitted a request for reclassification to the PERSCOM on 9 September 1994 accompanied with documentation indicating his training and experience in the MOS he was requesting. The PERSCOM approved his request on 11 October 1994 based on the applicants submission of documents indicating that he had successfully completed the Electronic Switching Technician Manager Course.
On 30 November 1994 the applicant submitted a request for promotion reconsideration to the PERSCOM contending, in effect, that his branch had made a mistake by not approving his first request for reclassification and that he was not properly afforded the opportunity to be considered for promotion to the pay grade of CW4 in MOS 250B and was thus nonselected. The PERSCOM denied his request on 16 February 1995 contending that he was properly considered for promotion in the MOS he held at the time the promotion board convened and therefore no material error existed that warranted reconsideration.
A review of the applicants official records failed to reveal any evidence that he had formally attended the training that ultimately served as the basis for approval of his request.
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained (COPY ATTACHED) from the warrant officer division of the PERSCOM. It opined that the applicants first request for reclassification was disapproved due to the lack of documented training and experience. However, his second request contained the documentation to support his request and was approved, accordingly. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be disapproved.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The applicant must shoulder the responsibility for not submitting the proper documentation to support his request. Accordingly, his contention that his first request for reclassification was unjustly disapproved and that his nonselection for promotion to the pay grade of CW4 was the result of the PERSCOM not properly approving his request, appears to be without merit.
2. The applicants records do not indicate that he attended the formal training necessary to support the reclassification he requested. Therefore, the PERSCOM correctly denied his request until he submitted the documentation necessary to support his request. Therefore, there is no basis to backdate his reclassification and grant him promotion reconsideration.
3. Inasmuch as promotion boards do not release information regarding their reasons for selection or nonselection of individuals for promotion, the applicants contention that his failure to be considered for promotion in MOS 250B is the reason he was not promoted to CW4 is purely speculation on his part and is not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089450C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That the Warrant Officer Branch at the U.S. Reserve Army Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) denied him the opportunity to attend the Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC) from 18 March 2002 to 12 April 2002 because he was "inappropriately" listed on the Active Retired List. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605617C070209
On 23 April 1996, a member of Congress was advised by the PERSCOM authorities that the applicants request for an extension on active duty beyond his mandatory release date of 29 February 1996 was not favorably considered; that, as a two time nonselect for promotion to CW3, he was required by law to separate from active duty; that, although a MMRB recommended the applicant for reclassification as a supply warrant officer, this action was taken 4 months after he had been a nonselect for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053396C070420
His records did not show the date he completed the WOSC when reviewed by the selection board. Army Regulation 135-155 also indicates that effective in 1994 completion of any WOSC is required for promotion to CW4. Notwithstanding the opinion received in this case, it is also noted that while the WOSC completion certificate is not dated, the applicant’s records show he completed the WOSC in 1987 and is educationally qualified for promotion to CW4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020759
The applicant states: * he was passed over for promotion from CW3 to CW4 by the FY2011 CW4 Promotion Selection Board because he had not met the pre-requisites for military education (Chief Warrant Officer Advanced Course (WOAC)) * the FY2011 CW4 Non-AGR Promotion Selection Board did [not] give proper consideration to his packet * he was attending WOAC during the period 28 March 2011 to 29 April 2011 when the FY2011 CW4 Non-AGR Promotion Selection Board began on 12 April 2011 * this should...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005094C071029
The applicant states that on 2 March 2007, she was notified that her selection for promotion by the STAB was in error, and based on the timing of her reclassification, she was not eligible for promotion and as a result, her name was being removed from the promotion list and she received orders revoking her SGM promotion. As a result, she submitted a request for a STAB based on being considered in the wrong MOS, and this request was approved by HRC, which resulted in her subsequent selection...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057122C070420
Current promotion policy specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records at the time of consideration. The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that based on the 6 years time in grade requirement, the applicant was in zone for promotion consideration by the 1991 through 2001 RCSB’s. The Board notes that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711245
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005330C070206
The applicant requests that he be reinstated as a warrant officer and promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3). Meanwhile, the applicant was selected for promotion to the rank of major; however, because he was serving as warrant officer, he could not accept the promotion. He was again nonselected for promotion before he had completed 1 year working as an engineer warrant officer, before he received an evaluation as a warrant officer, and before he was deemed eligible to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052128C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 22 March 1999, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) informed the applicant that his name was administratively removed from the promotion list due to his being denied enrollment to ANCOC due to APFT failure. Since he was a prior NCOES failure, he was not authorized a conditional promotion.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082767C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that she successfully appealed an officer evaluation report (OER) that she received as a commander and the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) unjustly denied her promotion reconsideration to the rank of CW5. If determining a material error exists, reconsideration may be warranted based on the nature of the inaccuracy, the officer's overall...