2. In effect, the applicant requests retroactive promotion to Sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1990.
3. The applicant states that a packet for promotion to Sergeant was supposed to be submitted in the spring of 1989 to the unit administrator (UA), who told him (the applicant), that the packet had been forwarded to the promotion board. Not receiving the results of that board, the applicant was informed at various times by the UA that he (the UA) had yet to receive the results. The UA finally told him that the board was canceled. Another soldier informed the applicant that this was not so, and that his packet was never forwarded to the board. His new commander informed him that everything would be taken care of. He was promoted on 14 March 1990. He was activated in support of Desert Storm, and after his return from Germany, he submitted a packet for promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, only to find out that his 14 March 1990 promotion orders to Sergeant were false, and not valid. He had to resubmit a packet for promotion (again) to Sergeant, and was promoted to that rank on 1 June 1992. However, he has lost two years time in grade because of the erroneous promotion orders. He should have become eligible for promotion to SSG in November of 1991.
4. The applicant is a Vietnam veteran who enlisted in the
Army Reserve on 17 October 1987 and reenlisted for 6 years on 12 October 1988.
5. On 20 December 1991 the applicants battalion commander appointed an officer to investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged falsifying of official orders to promote the applicant. The investigating officer found that the applicants 14 March 1990 promotion order to Sergeant was, in all likelihood false. He found that the applicant served as a Sergeant, not knowing that the promotion was not valid, that the applicant was recommended for promotion to SSG while on active duty in early 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm, and upon completion of his active duty the applicant prepared his packet for submission to a promotion board. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that the applicants promotion order to Sergeant was false. That officer concluded that the applicant was a soldier of high integrity and unwavering honesty, and that the applicant was not involved in the falsifying of promotion orders. He stated that the applicant was fully qualified for promotion as far back as 1988, that the applicant should be considered and promoted to Sergeant, retroactive to 14 March 1990, and that he should also be considered for SSG by the next available promotion board. The investigating officer recommended that the applicant not be required to reimburse the government for the monies received as a result of the false promotion.
6. Orders from the 96th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) indicate that the applicant was promoted to Sergeant on
14 March 1990 [this is the supposedly erroneous promotion order].
7. A statement from an NCO PAC (Personnel and Administrative Center) supervisor, indicates that he was informed by an official at the 96th ARCOM, the applicants major Reserve command, that the applicants records had never been reviewed by a promotion board, and the applicant was never promoted. That official also stated that no promotion packet had ever been received on the applicant. After receiving a set of the 14 March 1990 orders, the PAC supervisor concluded that those orders were false, based on the discrepancy in the sequence of the order number. The 96th ARCOM official confirmed that the orders were false.
8. NCO evaluation reports ending November 1990 and May 1991 show the applicants rank as Sergeant, as do other documents in his record, including his 18 May 1991 document separating him from active duty (ordered to active duty in support of Desert Storm). The applicants senior rater on his report ending in November 1990 recommended that he be promoted immediately to SSG. His rater on his report ending in May 1991 considered his potential for promotion among the best. His reviewer, who was also his commanding officer, concurred with this evaluation.
9. The applicant was promoted to Sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 1992.
10. On 28 August 1992 the applicant was recommended for promotion to Staff Sergeant. The applicant has since been promoted to that rank effective and with a date of rank of
1 July 1993 (subsequent to the date of his application to this Board).
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was erroneously promoted to Sergeant on
14 March 1990. The applicant contends that he was not aware that the promotion was erroneous. He is supported in this by the officer who investigated the circumstances concerning this erroneous promotion. This Board agrees with the applicants contention and the investigating officers conclusion.
2. The applicant served as a Sergeant in good faith from
14 March 1990, the date of his erroneous promotion. His evaluation reports and other documents after that date, show his rank as Sergeant, and he was recognized as a Sergeant by personnel in his chain of command. Although his records do not so indicate, he would have had to revert to his former grade of E-4, sometime after the discovery of the erroneous promotion. He was correctly promoted to Sergeant on
1 June 1992.
3. The applicants contention, supported by the investigation officers conclusion, that his promotion to Sergeant should be retroactive to 14 March 1990 is well taken by this Board. In the interest of justice and fairness, the applicants records should be changed to show that he was promoted to Sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1990, and that he receive all due pay and allowances as a result of this promotion.
4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records 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 Sergeant E-5 effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1990, and that he receive all pay and allowances due as a result of this promotion.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025034
The applicant requests a personal hearing and that the following errors or injustices in his record be corrected. He contends: * the period covered is inaccurate and inconsistent, there was no published rating scheme, no timely counseling, and no discussion of objectives or duties * he received his copy of the contested OER without the rating officials signatures after he received the Relief for Cause (RFC) OER * the OER was not processed at the Army Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) within 90...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003039
The applicant requests a retroactive promotion to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and consideration for promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9. f. as noted in the supporting endorsements of the BSM award recommendation, both the Battalion Commander and Special Forces Task Force Commander in Desert Shield/Storm and Group Commander stated that had this information been known at the time the award of the BSM would have been made in 1991. g. he requests the recently-approved BSM be used for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066580C070402
The PAC was advised that the packet was not received by the Personnel Service Company in time for the April 1991 promotion consideration. The PAC stated that when they inquired about a retroactive entitlement, they were informally notified that as the applicant's request was received after the cutoff date and there were no exceptions to the effective date for readjustment of points, no relief could be granted. Therefore, the Board concludes that an exception to policy should be made and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050007590
Counsel requests that the applicant's records be corrected to show that (1) he did not fraudulently request and obtain unauthorized military pay and benefits; (2) he did not improperly receive medical care at government expense; (3) he did not fail to provide evidence that his injury was aggravated while in a duty status; (4) he did not erroneously receive incapacitation pay; (5) the Army National Guard (ARNG) properly reimbursed him and his private insurer for out-of-pocket medical expenses...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010705
On 5 August 1992, the applicant was again personally informed by his battalion commander of the requirement to execute a waiver statement within 7 days. By regulation, when the new separation action was initiated, the applicant had 7 days to acknowledge, respond, and exercise his rights. It stated that individuals would be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017125
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110017125 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Also on 8 August 2011, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a DA Form 4187 requesting the applicant's promotion to SSG be revoked. He added: * The applicant was not given due process as the command had no authority to reduce her * The command did not conduct an administrative reduction board as required by Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003630
BOARD DATE: 14 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003630 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The IG investigation indicated that he met the standard and that his promotion packet should have been sent forward to the promotion board. The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicants service in the highest grade he held (pay grade E-6) was satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010544
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier request for: * promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), effective 16 September 2011 with entitlement to back pay and allowances * placement on the Retired List in the rank of LTC vice major (MAJ) on his 60th birthday * correction of the applicant's mobilization DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending on 30 April 1991, to show his rank as LTC 2. Had he not requested...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017169
The applicant requests the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 21 December 2006, for Recruiting Improprieties (RI) be found unsubstantiated and: a. removing the GOMOR from his official military personnel file (OMPF) or transferring to the restricted section of his OMPF; b. overturning the decision by the Standby Advisory Board (STAB), dated 10 December 2009, to remove him from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Sergeant First Class (SFC) Promotion List; and c. retroactively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018041
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's previous request for removal a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 20 August 2013, from his official military personnel file (OMPF). Counsel provides: * DA Form 2627 * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigation Officer (IO)/Board of Officers) * Certificate of Promotion, dated 1 March 2013 * two orders * a Defense Finance and Accounting Service Military Leave and...