APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he receive Standby Advisory Board (STAB) consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSG).
APPLICANT STATES: That he is entitled to promotion reconsideration to MSG because 68 semester hours of college courses and 3 years of college education was missing from his record when it was considered by the promotion board. Further, he wishes to have a corrected noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER) reviewed by the promotion board as well.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered the service on 10 June 1981 and through a series of immediate reenlistments has remained on active duty. On 1 August 1992 he was promoted to the grade of sergeant first class.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). The PERSCOM stated that the applicants records had been considered in the secondary zone by the January 1996 MSG promotion board and he was not selected. STABs are convened to consider records of those from a primary zone and only the absence of a degree, not a record of college credit hours completed would constitute a material error in the record. Therefore, the applicants request should be denied.
Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, provides in pertinent part, the rules for processing STAB considerations. The PERSCOM will determine if a material error existed in a soldiers record when the file was reviewed by a promotion board. An error is considered material when there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed the soldier may have been selected for promotion. Only soldiers who were not selected from a primary zone of consideration will be reconsidered for promotion. Soldiers who were considered in a secondary zone will not be reconsidered.
The same regulation also provides that material error regarding civilian education would only pertain to the receipt of a degree which was not recorded in the record or was not seen in hard copy by the board.
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. In accordance with the regulatory guidance concerning STABs, soldiers who were considered in the secondary zone will not be reconsideration by a STAB.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he has not shown that he is entitled to STAB consideration based on the errors he alleges.
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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212
The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005924C070206
He based his request on the fact that two of the NCOs selected in his MOS were selected even through they were not graduates of the USASMA, and because he believed two of the promotion board members were biased against his selection. This RC promotion official states that promotion selection boards are governed by Army regulatory policy, and members are selected for their maturity, judgment and freedom from bias. While the applicant clearly believes he is better qualified than the Soldiers...
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 | CY2001 | 2001052654C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he assumes that his records would also be presented to the STAB for consideration following the MSG board based on his back dated rank to SFC. The applicant indicates he has not.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012079
Her eligibility data is as follows: * USASMC graduate * BASD of 30 June 1986 * DOB of 8 September 1956 d. Based upon the criteria listed in MILPER Message Number 12-100 and Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 4-2a, she met the announced DOR, BASD, and other eligibility criteria prescribed by HRC for the FY2012 AGR SGM Selection and Training Board and should have been provided a promotion board file for consideration for promotion to SGM. The applicant claims she was denied promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004368C070208
Counsel further states that while the applicant received his overdue promotion to SSG/E-6 and was selected for and promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB), he was unable to be considered for promotion to MSG/E-8 by the Calendar Year 2004 (CY 2004) MSG/E-8 Promotion Selection Board (PSB) because he had not completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). In a 17 October 2002 application to this Board, the applicant requested immediate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012829
The applicant states, in effect, that had it not been for the derogatory Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) in his record for the September 2003 through May 2004, he would have been promoted to MSG/E-8 by the FY05 Promotion Selection Board. c. DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report ), for the period September 2003 through May 2004. d. Memorandum, dated 27 September 2004, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC), Indianapolis, Indiana, rejecting the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087745C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 September 2002, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM advised the applicant that after careful review of his record, his request for a STAB was not favorably considered. Soldiers must request reconsideration if they believe their records contained a material error when it was considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008880
The applicant states: * he was fully qualified to be considered for promotion by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 MSG Promotion Selection Board; however, he was not considered for promotion to MSG because he was under an erroneous flagging action * he was approved for consideration by the next Department of the Army (DA) Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (STAB), which convened 29 January 2008 * he strongly believes the STAB selected him for promotion; however, since the erroneous flag was not removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086775C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records be corrected to show he received his notification of selection for promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 79R in 2001, accepted the promotion, and was promoted to SFC based upon that 2001 selection. APPLICANT STATES : That he was selected for promotion to SFC as a 79R in 2001 but he did not receive that information until 2002, when he was informed that he could not accept the promotion from 2001 and...