APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion reconsideration to the pay grades of E-7 and E-8 by a Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was barred from reenlistment under the qualitative management program (QMP) for over 15 months and was not considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 during the calendar year (CY) 1988, 1989, and 1990 promotion selection boards. He further states that he successfully appealed the bar to reenlistment and was subsequently selected by the CY 1991 E-7 promotion selection board and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. He goes on to state that based on his successful appeal of the bar to reenlistment, he should receive reconsideration for earlier promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and possibly selection for promotion to the pay grade of E-8.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 31 October 1979 for a period of 4 years and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 20 October 1984.
On 20 October 1988 the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment based on two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) contained in his official records that indicated he had failed the Army physical fitness test and that he did not meet the weight control standards of Army Regulation 600-9. The applicant was serving as a recruiter in Arizona at the time he was notified.
The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment to the STAB on 20 January 1989. His appeal was initially denied on 20 September 1989; however, he resubmitted his appeal which was approved by the STAB on 9 April 1990. Although, the basis for the applicants appeal is not contained in the official records, the STAB did not alter, correct, or remove from his records the documents that served as the basis for the bar to reenlistment from his records.
The applicant was subsequently promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991.
In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). It opined that the applicant was considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 by the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board and was barred to reenlistment under the QMP by that board. At that point, by virtue of being barred from reenlistment, he was ineligible for consideration by the CY 1989 E-7 board. However, after successfully appealing his bar to reenlistment in April 1990, the applicant was considered and selected by the CY 1990 E-7 board in October 1990. He received a promotion sequence number of 100 in military occupational specialty OOR and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. The PERSCOM further opined that the lifting of the bar to reenlistment was not retroactive and does not constitute a basis for referral to a STAB. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied.
Army Regulation 600-200 serves as the authority for selection and promotion to pay grades E-7 through E-9. It states, in pertinent part, that personnel who are barred to reenlistment prior to the convening date of a selection board are not eligible for consideration by that board.
Paragraph 7-44 of that regulation also states, in pertinent part, that a STAB will only consider records of soldiers in the primary zone of consideration that were not properly constituted due to a major material error, when reviewed by a regular board. An error is considered material when in the judgment of a mature individual familiar with selection board proceedings, there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed, the soldier may have been selected.
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 bar to reenlistment was properly imposed in accordance with applicable regulations. Although the applicant successfully appealed the bar to reenlistment, the bar to reenlistment was not based on material error and the documents that served as the basis for the bar were not altered, corrected, or removed from the applicants records. Accordingly, the applicant was not eligible for promotion consideration while the bar to reenlistment remained in effect. Likewise, he is not eligible for promotion reconsideration by a STAB for the period (CY 1989) the bar to reenlistment was in effect.
2. The applicants contention that he was not considered by the CY 1988 and CY 1990 E-7 promotion selection board is without merit. The applicant was considered by the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board and that board imposed the bar to reenlistment under the QMP. The applicant was subsequently considered by the CY 1990 board and selected for promotion by that board.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
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
David R. Kinneer
Executive Secretary
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078028C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly denied promotion consideration to the pay grade of E-7 by the 1991 Sergeant First Class (SFC) Promotion Selection Board because his bar to reenlistment was not removed from his records by the time the selection board convened. His counsel contends, in effect, that because the applicant was not considered by the 1991 SFC Promotion Selection Board, he was unjustly denied subsequent promotions to the pay grades of E-8 and E-9, which has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608168C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Removal of a record of proceedings of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) dated 17 September 1992 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-7 with all back pay and allowances if he is selected. The record of proceedings of NJP that served as the basis for the QMP action was imposed against the applicant on 17 September 1992, while he was serving in the pay grade of E-6 in Panama. Although the applicant successfully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711786
On 18 July 1995, his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension shows his date of entry on current enlistment was 8 November 1989 for a 6 year period.) In an opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notes that, based on the absence of the NCO-ER for ending period October 1991, the applicant’s records will be made available for consideration by the May 1998 Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under the 1993 criteria. The applicant was not granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071430C070402
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was unjustly barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and was denied any severance pay for his many years of service. Soldiers who are denied reenlistment are authorized one-half separation pay. At the time the applicant separated from the service, there were no provisions to authorize severance pay to enlisted personnel and the implementing instructions that subsequently authorized severance pay to enlisted personnel,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006839
Dodson appealed the EER to the Appeal Board. While Dodsons EER Appeal was pending, on 29 March 1983 the PSB barred Dodson from reenlisting (QMP). It was not until after he received the QMP decision that he appealed the EERs and appealed the QMP decision to the STAB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017341
The Board noted that an Enlisted STAB denied the applicant's request to remove the DA QMP bar to reenlistment and that an Enlisted Special Review Board denied his request to remove the relief for cause NCOER. There is no evidence the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 to show he was retired from active duty in the rank of SSG/pay grade E-6 with an effective date of pay grade of 1 August 1993. A letter from the applicant to DFAS, dated 12 May 2009, in which he stated that he retired from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060352C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not submitted any evidence, nor is there any evidence or indication in the applicant’s records, that the applicant’s rater for the applicant’s NCOER for the period covering August 1993 through July 1994 altered her NCOER or that his rating of her was retaliatory or based on any form of discrimination against the applicant. The reason why the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608637C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DA Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be reconsidered. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 29 August 1978 he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509985C070209
In part IVa, values/NCO responsibilities, the applicant received a no rating under Is committed to and shows a sense of pride in the unit - works as a member of the team. The supporting comments indicate that the applicant had constant disagreements with the chain of command that resulted in his inability to work as a team player. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054833C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, the records fail to show that he ever submitted an appeal to the bar to reenlistment under the QMP. He was not authorized separation pay because he was not serving on active duty on 5 November 1990.