2. The applicant requests that the effective date of his promotion to pay grade E-6 be corrected to 13 October 1993.
3. The applicants military records show that while he was assigned to a USAR unit in pay grade E-5, on 13 October 1993 the 88th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM), Fort Snelling, Minnesota, sent a memorandum to its subordinate command stating that the applicant was selected for promotion to pay grade E-6 and directed that command to publish the promotion order. In compliance with that directive, on 17 May 1994 orders were published promoting the applicant to pay grade E-6. Those orders specified that both the effective date and the date of rank of that promotion would be 14 October 1993.
4. Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 1-9, which contains the guidelines for correcting the effective date of a promotion, specifies that the effective date of a promotion/advancement will be the date of the order/personnel action or a future date. In those cases where a soldier is entitled to an effective date of promotion/advancement before the date of the order/personnel action, he or she is required to petition this Board for authority to correct the effective date of the promotion or advancement.
5. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Army Reserve (CAR). The CAR stated that an injustice exists in the applicants promotion which was caused by the inordinate delay in publishing his promotion order. The CAR recommended approval of the applicants request.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant should have been promoted to pay grade E-6 immediately upon receipt of the 88th ARCOMs directive. Under ideal circumstances his promotion order would have been published the day of the directive, 13 October 1993. Therefore, that date should be the effective date of his promotion.
2. Due to undisclosed reasons, the publication of orders promoting the applicant was delayed for more than 7 months.
3. Although the order promoting the applicant specified that his date of rank would be the day after the 88th ARCOM ordered his promotion, the effective date of that promotion was necessarily the date the promotion order was published.
4. In view of the foregoing the applicant's records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to pay grade E-6 effective 13 October 1993 with a same date of rank and with entitlement to all appropriate pay and allowances from that date.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006311
Records indicate the applicant, then a sergeant/pay grade E-5, was recommended for promotion to SSG/pay grade E-6 by a promotion board on 1 June 2013. He contends that none of the mobilized Soldiers returned to the unit or left the unit until January/March 2014. c. When his unit reported the vacancy in October 2013, he was not placed in a position that was being held for a mobilized Soldier. d. He contends that no other Soldier was promoted to the rank of SSG a month prior to his promotion board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020344
The applicant requests promotion consideration to the rank/pay grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8. The applicant states: * he was informed to maintain membership within his unit upon accepting a military technician (MT) position on 14 October 1984 * he was promoted to the rank/grade of SFC/E-7 upon his return from Operation Desert Storm * his promotion orders were revoked because the promotion was in another unit * he was later informed that an MT could be promoted in any unit within the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016758
During its original review the Board found insufficient evidence to support the applicant's allegation that his non-selection for promotion by the July 1993 BG Promotion Selection Board was unjust and the Board finally concluded that the highest rank he attained was colonel (COL) and that there was insufficient evidence to support his promotion to BG. This official further indicates that there is no evidence suggesting the applicant was recommended/nominated for promotion to BG or that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014443
There is no indication or evidence in the applicant's records that she was enrolled in or completed Phase II of MOS 54B BNCOC as stipulated in her promotion orders. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was conditionally promoted to SSG/E-6 on 30 June 1998 in MOS 54B contingent upon her successful completion of BNCOC. With respect to the applicant's contention that she should be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7, there is no evidence that the applicant met grade and/or NCOES...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077378C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his OER’S for the periods of 12 September 1996 through 11 September 1997 and 12 September 1997 through 11 September 1998 were not completed until 25 August 1999, that his rating chain was improper because he was never assigned to the 88 th Regional Support Command (RSC), that none of the requirements of Army Regulation 623-105 were complied with, that he was twice non-selected for promotion to LTC because neither the OER’s or a statement of non-rated time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007586
The applicant's records show he was recommended for promotion to master sergeant by the August 2007 Senior Enlisted Promotion Board and integrated onto the PPRL managed by the 88th RRC. There is no evidence the applicant was placed in an E-8 position or that orders were published promoting him to pay grade E-8. c. Paragraph 5-44f of Army Regulation 600-8-19 states before submitting removal action, commanders will promptly advise the convening authority of any Soldier whose name appears on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000933
The applicant provides: * self-authored memorandum, dated 5 January 2012 * DA Form 2B (Personnel Qualification Record (PQR)), dated 23 January 2008 and 7 April 2011 * mobilization Orders A-03-007121, dated 9 March 2010 * DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) for the period ending 4 November 2010 * mobilization Orders A-12-035136, dated 21 December 2010 * Unit Manning Reports (UMR), dated 7 April 2011, 8 November 2011, and 13 November 2012 * AHRC Forms 56-R, dated 8 April 2011, 8 and 9...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009586
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending on 30 March 2012, to show he retired for disability in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 vice sergeant (SGT)/E-5. On 20 August 2002, MIARNG published Orders 232-011 honorably discharging him from the ARNG in the rank/grade of SPC/E-4 effective 1 August 2002 in accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) paragraph 8-26g(3)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070497C070402
He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 December 1996 and on 20 October 1999, requested a date to attend the ANCOC. Additionally, the applicant was again conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 2002 ( 3 months after his application to the Board) and was scheduled to attend the ANCOC on 23 February 2003. The Board notes that he was promoted in November 1996 and did not request attendance at the ANCOC until 3 years later.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003890
The applicant requests, in effect, that his 17 March 2006 discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) be voided and that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve on that same date in lieu of being discharged. Army Regulation 135-180 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve-Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service), indicates, in pertinent part, that each Reserve component Soldier who completes the service required to be eligible for retired pay at age 60 will be notified...