APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement of his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 with all back pay and allowances and correction of his records to show that he retired in the pay grade of E-7.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 and the promotion was subsequently revoked because he had not attended the advanced noncommissioned officer course (ANCOC). He goes on to state that he should not have been scheduled to attend ANCOC because he had a pending request for retirement under the Voluntary Early Retirement Program (VERP). He further states that his retirement had been approved in the pay grade of E-7 and that his orders were initially published retiring him in the pay grade of E-7. After he pointed the error out to the retirement services personnel, they would not allow him to keep the orders until they had made a corrected copy to reflect his pay grade as an E-6. He continues by stating that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 before he retired and therefore should have retired in that grade.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 16 June 1980 for a period of 3 years and remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 6 February 1988.
On 27 January 1994 the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) released the results of the calendar year 1993a E-7 promotion and ANCOC selection board which selected the applicant for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and attendance at the ANCOC.
The applicant, while serving as a recruiter in the pay grade of E-6, submitted a request for early retirement (15-year retirement) on 9 August 1994 under the fiscal year 1995 VERP.
On 1 February 1995 the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7. His orders specified that acceptance of the promotion automatically incurred a 2-year service obligation prior to voluntary nondisability retirement. It also specified that personnel serving in the pay grade of E-6 who did not have ANCOC credit would be promoted conditionally and that failure to complete the ANCOC requirement would result in revocation of the promotion and removal from the centralized promotion list.
The PERSCOM (Separations and Retirements Branch) approved the applicants request for separation under the VERP in the pay grade of E-6 on 15 February 1995, with an effective date of retirement of not later than 1 August 1995. The PERSCOM (Promotions Branch) revoked the applicants promotion on 21 February 1995 due to his not having completed the ANCOC requirement.
On 31 July 1995 the applicant was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-6 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12 and the VERP. He was placed on the retired list effective 1 August 1995. He had served 15 years, 1 month, and 15 days of total active service.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. The applicants contention that his request for separation was approved in the pay grade of E-7 and that he should have retired in that grade is without merit. The applicant applied for early retirement under the VERP approximately 5 months before he was promoted and his request was approved by the Department for retirement in the pay grade of E-6.
3. Additionally, the applicants promotion orders clearly indicated that his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 automatically incurred a 2-year service remaining obligation prior to retirement and was conditional upon his successfully completing the ANCOC.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant did not attend the ANCOC, he accepted the promotion to the pay grade of E-7 knowing full well that he had applied for early retirement under the VERP. Therefore, even if he had completed the ANCOC, he could not have retired in the pay grade of E-7 until he had completed the 2-year service remaining obligation.
5. The applicant had the choice of withdrawing his application for retirement after his promotion on 1 January 1995 and prior to approval by the PERSCOM on 15 February 1995. The fact that he chose not to do so does not constitute error or injustice by the Department.
6. 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 | 2003086730C070212
The bar was reviewed after 6 months and was subsequently removed. Although the applicant's request to the NCOES Reinstatement Panel is not present for review by the Board. NOTE: In the event that the applicant has not been awarded his third and subsequent awards of the GCM as directed by Board proceedings AR2002071043 dated 24 October 2002, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), St. Louis will be requested to accomplish the action as directed by the Board in that case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000338C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with the separation date 31 January 1999, be corrected to show he retired in the rank of sergeant first class/pay grade E-7. U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Order Number 346-20, dated 12 December 1995, shows that the applicant was promoted to the rank of sergeant first class/pay grade E-7, effective 1 January 1996. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. That official stated that the applicant could not fully document his failure to attend ANCOC, because he did not pass the physical training test; however, he gave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738C070209
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. An official of that command stated that the applicant was promoted to Sergeant First Class effective 27 February 1997 upon successful completion of ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072707C070403
PERSCOM officials indicate that the applicant was conditionally promoted on 14 October 1999, and that this promotion was later revoked based on his failure to attend a scheduled ANCOC class due to a FLAG action based on his failure of a record APFT. The Army’s ANCOC general attendance policy outlined by the PERSCOM NCOES branch states, in pertinent part, that is currently no deadline in determining when the soldier must attend ANCOC. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061235C070421
The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC and to the pay grade of E-7. A staff member of the Board also reviewed similar cases that have been reviewed by the Board and finds that in all such cases, the Board supported the PERSCOM decision to promote individuals who had been reinstated after they completed the ANCOC; however, it was always with a retroactive DOR (to the date they were originally promoted), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances (minus the de facto...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709365C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He alleged that he had received an adverse NCOER and was not recommended for a PCS award because of protected disclosures he made to his chain of command and an investigator during an investigation being conducted under Army Regulation 15-6. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by removing the NCOER ending on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709365
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He alleged that he had received an adverse NCOER and was not recommended for a PCS award because of protected disclosures he made to his chain of command and an investigator during an investigation being conducted under Army Regulation 15-6. An investigation was conducted under the auspices of the Department of the Army IG which concluded that the applicant’s rater was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605090C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 12 April 1994, while serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in the pay grade of E-6, the applicants commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for failure to provide a dependent care plan. It also stated that individuals who were pending involuntary separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 were not eligible to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062964C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he was granted reinstatement to the ANCOC, which he completed; however, his DOR was changed to 3 July 2001, to coincide with the date he completed the ANCOC. Personnel who apply for reinstatement, who are reinstated, will receive a DOR and effective date as of the date they graduate the ANCOC.