Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605048C070209
Original file (9605048C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved
2.  In effect, the applicant requests that the effective date and date of rank of her promotion to Sergeant E-5 be adjusted from 1 May 1992 to 20 June 1991.  

3.  The applicant states that her promotion orders of 
20 June 1991 were revoked.  She was subsequently promoted on 1 May 1992; however, she was in fact occupying a valid position vacancy in which she was qualified when she was originally promoted in 1991.

4.  The applicant served on active duty from 19 January 1978 until her discharge on 28 September 1979.  Her DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) shows that she was a finance specialist, MOS (military occupational specialty) 73C10.

5.  The applicant enlisted in the Reserve on 29 June 1989.  She was an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) soldier on duty with the 21st Theater Army Area Command (TAACOM) when she was attached to the Replacement Battalion Activity at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana for duty with a finance and accounting office on 16 December 1990.   

6.  On 20 June 1991 the applicant was promoted to Sergeant pay grade E-5 and awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 73C20 (finance NCO).  

7.  On 13 July 1991 an official in the office of the Chief of the Army Reserve (OCAR) requested that the applicant’s promotion order to pay grade E-5 be revoked.  That official stated, in effect, that Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 4-6, required a soldier to be qualified in the duty MOS (DMOS) and be in the position authorized a Sergeant E-5 in order to be promoted.  He continued by saying that the applicant was not qualified in her DMOS.  

8.  On 1 May 1992 the order promoting the applicant to Sergeant E-5 was revoked.

9.  On 24 June 1992 an official at Fort Benjamin Harrison 
stated that the applicant was assigned to an E-5 position during the period December 1990 through July 1991, while 
working in the military pay branch.

10.  On 17 November 1992 the adjutant of the 21st TAACOM, in a memorandum to this Board, requested that the applicant’s original date of rank of 21 June 1991 for promotion to pay grade E-5, be reinstated.  That official stated that the applicant was assigned to a MOS 71C20 position while assigned to the 21st TAACOM, but upon mobilization she was assigned and fully qualified as a finance NCO (MOS 73C20) in an E-5 position with the Replacement Battalion Activity, although the Reserve Personnel Center at St. Louis indicated that she was an executive administrative assistant (MOS 71C20) with the 21st TAACOM.  That official stated that all the soldiers mobilized and deployed to Southwest Asia from the 21st TAACOM were reassigned to positions in a support command, in effect, causing the 21st TAACOM to cease existing.

11.  On 1 May 1992 the applicant completed an executive administrative assistant course, MOS 71C20, and was promoted to Sergeant, pay grade E-5, on that date.

12.  An official from the OCAR, in an informal opinion, stated that the revocation of the order promoting the applicant was indeed correct - that the applicant was not in an E-5 position vacancy in her assigned unit at the time of her promotion in June 1991.

13.  Army Regulation 140-158 prescribes the policies and procedures concerning promotion of soldiers serving on AGR status.  Paragraph 4-6 of that regulation states, in effect, that soldiers will be promoted only in the career primary
MOS (CPMOS).  They must be fully qualified in the MOS in which recommended for promotion.  On entry on AGR status, soldiers who accepted assignment to a duty position not 
relating to their PMOS or secondary MOS (SMOS) must become fully qualified in the DMOS.  They must be reclassified before, or at the time of, the promotion.  Position vacancies are required.  The soldier must be assigned to the higher graded position vacancy prior to execution of the promotion.

14.  Paragraph 1-8 of the aforementioned regulation states, in effect, that when orders are published revoking a promotion, the soldier’s service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the soldier to retain pay and allowances received in that status.  A de facto status may have existed when an instrument of promotion has been issued; and the soldier occupied the higher grade in good faith; and the soldier actually discharged the functions of the higher grade; and there is no absolute statutory bar to her receipt of the funds. 


1.  The applicant was erroneously promoted to Sergeant E-5 on 20 June 1991.  The order revoking her promotion was proper.

2.  The applicant served in pay grade E-5 in a de facto status from 20 June 1991 until the revocation of her promotion on 1 May 1992.  She should retain all pay and allowances in pay grade E-5 for that period.

3.  The applicant was properly promoted to pay grade E-5 in MOS 71C20 on 1 May 1992. 

4.  In view of the foregoing finds and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.


1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned served in a de facto status as a Sergeant, pay grade E-5, from 20 June 1991 until 1 May 1992, and that she retain all pay and allowances in pay grade E-5 for that period.
2.  That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied.                



                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007397

    Original file (20080007397.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), in effect at the time, chapter 4, provided guidance regarding the promotion of Soldiers serving in an AGR status. The fact that an error was made on the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, memorandum, dated 21 January 1992, citing the authority for his removal from the 1991 SFC Promotion List as Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 4-19f(4), instead of paragraph...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024351

    Original file (20100024351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Headquarters, USARC Orders 09-072-00007, dated 13 March 2009, promoted her to sergeant major in MOS 42A with an effective date of 15 January 2009. In her request she stated a MSG at USARC stated she wasn't the only SGM whose promotion orders were revoked. USARC stated the applicant's promotion board was from 16 - 20 January 2007.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003732

    Original file (20130003732.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides: * Self-authored statements * DA Form 2142 (Pay Inquiry), dated 11 February 2013 * memorandum, subject: Additional Duty Appointment, dated 3 November 2012 * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) * emails * Orders Number 12-208-00117, issued by Headquarters, 63d Regional Support Command, Mountain View, CA, dated 26 July 2012 * Orders Number R-07-287352, issued by HRC, dated 6 July...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024543

    Original file (20100024543.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests to be reinstated to the rank of sergeant major (SGM)/pay grade E-9 with an effective date of 15 October 2008. The promotion orders were processed on 29 January 2009; therefore, the promotion was erroneous. Furthermore, the applicant was not the first Soldier on the list.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000585C080213

    Original file (20080000585C080213.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records at the AGR Branch, USAHRC – STL show that the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the 2001, 2002, and 2003 AGR E-7 promotion boards. Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), in effect at the time, paragraph 1-8e, stated that, when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the Soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the Soldier to retain pay and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020484

    Original file (20110020484.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This document shows that de facto status was approved for his promotion to SFC/E-7 in the MOS of 95B for the period 1 August 2009 through 12 July 2010. On 10 May 2011, the applicant was given a GOMOR which shows an investigation determined that he: a. knowingly accepted award of the PMOS 31B and promotion to SFC in July 2009 for which he was not qualified; b. made a false official statement on his June 2009 security clearance application by stating that he had not been subject to any...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015304

    Original file (20120015304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Records indicate the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGM by the August 2006 Senior Enlisted Promotion Board and integrated onto the PPRL managed by the 99th RSC. A promotion is not valid and the promotion order will be revoked if the Soldier is not, or was not, in a promotable status on the effective date. Evidence shows the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGM by the August 2006 promotion board and he was integrated onto the PPRL.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071010C070402

    Original file (2002071010C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The recommendation contained in the ARPERSCOM advisory opinion is that the applicant be granted de facto status for the periods 1 December 1999 through 28 December 2001. The evidence of record confirms that although the applicant technically failed to comply with the two year promotion service remaining requirement within 30 days of the effective date of his promotion, this was more the result of administrative processing errors rather than a reflection of the applicant’s intent not to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022994

    Original file (20120022994.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the time, policy guidance allowed promotion off the recommended lists for Soldiers who were granted a waiver, but only if the Soldier was currently deployed. He was promoted to SFC on 14 July 2010; however, since he did not complete his required NCOES until 18 December 2011 his promotion was revoked. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 July 2010; however, he did not complete the required NCOES course within the prescribed period of time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010508

    Original file (20110010508.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He states: a. he submitted his promotion packet to the 99th Regional Support Command (RSC), who processed it and placed him on the Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL) for a period of two years; b. in January 2009, he received a telephone call from the 99th RSC notifying him he had been selected and promoted to E-9; c. he received promotion orders on 13 February 2009 with an effective date of 15 January 2009; d. his official military personnel file reflected his promotion to...