APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion to the pay grade of E-9.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has been erroneously and unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-9. He further states that his initial nonselections for promotion were based on the presence of erroneous documents in his official records that were subsequently removed through administrative appeals. He goes on to state that his subsequent nonselections were based on his previous nonselections, which is unjust because his last three assignments have been as the enlisted aide to four star generals. The generals have indicated that his performance has been outstanding, that he has great potential, and that he should be promoted ahead of his peers. He also states that he has completed two college degrees (Associate and Bachelors), and that he has always exceeded the standards for the ranks he has held.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Enlisted Aide program in January 1986 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 17 September 1987.
On 9 June 1989 the applicant was notified in writing that he was being considered for involuntary disenrollment from the Sergeants Major Academy Corresponding Studies Program and that he was entitled to submit matters in his own behalf if he desired to appeal the disenrollment.
The applicant elected to appeal his disenrollment and submitted a letter in his own behalf in which he explained that he had gotten behind in his studies because he was attending college, his wife was expecting their first child, and he was experiencing a lot of stress in his job.
On 29 August 1989 the applicant was involuntarily disenrolled from the nonresident Sergeants Major Academy class of July 1990 (class 15). The academic evaluation report (AER) indicates that the applicant failed to achieve a passing score on the primary and two alternate examinations for phase I, military studies, and was rated as having failed to achieve course standards.
On 6 April 1992 the Calendar Year 1992 Sergeant Major Promotion Selection Board determined that a bar to reenlistment should be imposed against the applicant under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) based on his AER (DA Form 1059) indicating his failure to complete the Sergeants Major Academy. The applicant appealed the bar to reenlistment with the support of his chain of command, which included several general officers. His appeal was approved on 5 November 1992.
A review of the applicants records show that the applicant has received awards of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Joint Chief of Staff Identification Badge. In addition, he attained an Associate degree in 1985 and a Bachelors degree in 1991.
After serving 20 years, 8 months, and 9 days of total active service, the applicant reenlisted on 14 September 1993 for a period of 4 years. He subsequently applied for an extension of service of 3 months past his scheduled expiration of term of service which was approved by the Department on 11 September 1995.
The applicant submitted an appeal on 20 April 1994 to the Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (ESRB) requesting that the AER be removed from his records. The ESRB denied his appeal on 15 July 1994.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides policies and procedures for managing the Centralized Promotion System for promotion to the pay grade of E-9. It states, in pertinent part, that selections by Department of the Army boards will be based on impartial consideration of all eligible soldiers in the announced zones by military occupational specialty (MOS). Promotion boards will select the best qualified soldiers in specified MOS's for promotion. The boards will recommend a specified number of soldiers by MOS who are best qualified to meet the needs of the Army. Effective 1 October 1993, graduation from the Sergeants Major Course became a prerequisite for promotion to the rank of Sergeant Major (E-9).
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. The applicants contentions that he was unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-9 due to the presence of erroneous documents contained in his records and the stigma attached to his being previously nonselected, is without merit. It is a well known fact that promotion selection boards do not reveal their reasons for selection or nonselection. Therefore, the applicants contentions are speculative at best and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application of the evidence of record.
2. It is unfortunate that the applicant has not been selected for promotion to pay grade E-9. However, this Board does not wish to act as a super-selection board by second guessing centralized promotion selection boards which were afforded the benefit of comparing the applicants record of performance and evaluating his potential for further service against that of his peers. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of error or injustice there is no basis to approve the applicants request.
3. 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 | 2002074856C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show that the AER in question contained a material error, was inaccurate, or was unjust. Although he did not appeal the report to the ESRB, his appeal and rebuttal was reviewed, considered, and denied by two NCO Academy commandants.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012469C070206
He appealed the AER to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB), which resulted in the ESRB finding the AER was in error and removing the AER from his records. The applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 June 2002 conditional upon his successfully completing ANCOC. The applicant appealed the AER and the ESRB granted his appeal to remove the AER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000450C070206
The applicant requests the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) dated 17 July 1996 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-7 by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB). Board members may not record their reasons or give reasons for selection or nonselection. It states, in pertinent part, that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) or its designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008580
The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 16 June 1980 and his date of birth (DOB) is recorded as 18 June 1948. However, the message that announced that board specifically stated that the eligibility criteria for appointment as TPU CSM included, if the Soldier was a MSG with a PEBD of 1 March 1972 and later (the applicant's PEBD was 16 June 1974) and with a date of rank of 6 June 2001 and earlier (the applicant's date of rank was 16 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017485C070206
Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant was unjustly not considered for promotion by the CY 2003 E-9 Promotion Selection Board in direct contravention of the applicable Army Regulations and that the Board should correct this error by promoting her to the pay grade of E-9 in the same order that she would have been selected had she been considered by that board and that she be granted all back pay and allowances to that date. The applicant was considered but was not selected for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062173C070421
The ESRB opined that the applicant did not meet the entry requirements for the course because he failed the APFT (2-mile run) due to an injury. Given the evidence in this case, the Board finds that the applicant should have been released from the course for medical reasons that occurred through no fault of his own and that any AER that was issued should have accurately reflected the events that occurred in his case. This is further supported by the fact that the applicant has always...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9305864
APPLICANT STATES : That he was led to believe by military publications, regulations and his Personnel Management Officer (PMO) that he would be considered to be satisfactorily participating in the USAR if he were to accept assignment to the USAR Control Group (IRR) and attended a service school. The applicant concludes that he is qualified for promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he participated within both the spirit and the letter of Army regulations and other directives, and was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058654C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he was non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve due his non-completion of Command and General Staff College (CGSC). Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14506, states that an officer in the grade of major who twice fails to be selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel will be removed from an active status when he completes...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065121C070421
He received an AER ending 19 August 1991 indicating he failed to achieve course standards and was academically released due to failing BRM (acronym unknown) qualification on three occasions. Less than one year after he was academically released from BNCOC, the applicant re-attended and successfully completed the course, competitively re-establishing himself with his successful peers. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by moving the AER for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010787C070208
The last entry on the applicant’s records regarding promotions show that his records were forwarded to the E- 7 promotion selection board on 10 July 1991. However, the applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that such was the case. It is also noted that from the time the applicant served under the 1SG in question in 1984, he served an additional 8 years and would have been considered by selections boards every year until...