APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be promoted to pay grade E-5 and E-6 and reinstated on active duty in the Regular Army.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was much more qualified than his peers but was not promoted, resulting in his mandatory separation at his retention control point (RCP). His failure to be promoted was due to his perfectionist attitude not being accepted for its worth. That resulted in his repeatedly being reassigned from ward to ward. When he complained about his treatment and his failure to be recommended for promotion, he was considered a troublemaker, further complicating his situation and resulting in his being referred for a psychiatric evaluation. When he discovered that he was scheduled to be involuntarily separated due to his reaching his RCP he solicited the help of the Sergeant Major of the Army, resulting in his enlistment being extended and his being recommended for promotion. However, by that time the Army was in the process of being drawn down and, even though he had the highest number of promotion points in his command, he could not be promoted which resulted in his separation. The applicant concludes that he had tried to further extend his enlistment beyond his RCP to no avail, being denied an audience with the commanding general of his command despite numerous requests for an audience and going on a 8-day hunger strike.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 November 1984, was awarded the military occupational specialty of practical nurse, and was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 on 20 August 1990 and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).
He was found to be fit for duty and reenlisted in the Regular Army on 24 September 1992. He was promoted to pay grade E-4.
While on active duty he was counseled in writing for omitting a scheduled medication for a patient, for poor interaction with his superiors, peers and subordinates, for lack of professional tact, for being late to work, for failing to go to the place prescribed, and for a lack of knowledge of his duties.
On 20 January 1995 the applicants commander recommended him for promotion, praising his ability, intelligence, military bearing, appearance, leadership abilities, and physical fitness.
On 23 January 1995 the applicants former wardmaster submitted a memorandum for the applicants first sergeant in which it was stated that the applicants performance of duty as a soldier was below average, that he thought of himself as a perfect human being, that he argued a lot with others, and that neither his peers nor other hospital staff members had any confidence in him. The wardmaster stated that she would not recommend him for promotion or for retention in the Army.
On 2 March 1995 he was given a laudatory counseling from his supervisor, and on 5 July 1995 his new wardmaster wrote a recommendation to allow the applicant to extend his enlistment, that statement also being very laudatory.
On 14 September 1995 the applicants duty status was changed from present for duty to AWOL, and was changed back to present for duty on 18 September 1995.
On 24 October 1995 the applicant was honorably discharged due to reduction in authorized strength under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8. He had a total of 8 years, 9 months and 27 days of active duty.
Army Regulation 601-280, paragraph 2-22, specifies that individuals in pay grade E-4 cannot have more than 8 years of total active service at their ETS, as established by a reenlistment. Paragraph 2-34 specifies that reenlistments must be in periods of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 years.
Army Regulation 600-200 outlines the policies and procedures for the promotion of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7, in pertinent part, specifies that promotion to pay grade E-5 may be accomplished by the first commander in the chain of command in the authorized position of an O-5, normally a battalion commander. Prior to promotion, the individual concerned must be recommended for promotion by his unit commander. The individual then must meet all other administrative requirements for promotion, such as sufficient time in the service and time in the prior pay grade, civilian and military educational requirements, and qualification in their military occupational specialty. The promotion authority may waive up to two disqualifications and must certify the promotion packet prior to the individual appearing before a promotion board. If the individual successfully appears before the local promotion board, the soldier is then ranked among his peers by a promotion cut-off score; the soldier is then promoted when the Department of the Army announces a monthly promotion cutoff score at or below his or her cutoff score. However, the soldiers must keep themselves qualified for promotion.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant did not have any inherent right to be considered for promotion. He had to be recommended for promotion by his commander.
2. It appears that although the applicant was knowledgeable in his field, his attitude prevented him from being an effective teamplayer, an absolute necessity for both a soldier and a nurse. In view of his ineffectiveness, it is not surprising that he was not recommended for promotion.
3. It appears that the applicant was able to control his attitude in the last year of his enlistment and finally became an effective soldier and nurse. However, as the applicant himself pointed out, the Army was in a drawdown mode at that time. Therefore, it was too little too late.
4. 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 | CY1997 | 1997005027
Applicant received two counseling statements in January 1992 before he was able to take the LPN license test in April 1992. Applicant received Bar to Reenlistment right before he was scheduled to re-enlist. The Bar to Reenlistment cited the two counseling statements (3 days apart), a 28 January 1992 Memorandum (no record of in applicant’s records) and the Letter of Reprimand.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997005027C070209
On 24 January 1992, the applicant received his 1st counseling statement, and a flagging action was initiated for not having a current LPN license. Applicant received two counseling statements in January 1992 before he was able to take the LPN license test in April 1992. The Bar to Reenlistment cited the two counseling statements (3 days apart), a 28 January 1992 Memorandum (no record of in applicants records) and the Letter of Reprimand.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006745
On 14 January 1992, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for separation under the Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program, effective 25 April 1992, under the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) option. It provided, in pertinent part, that non-disability separation pay was authorized for Regular Army enlisted Soldiers involuntarily separated or released from active duty who were discharged under honorable conditions and who had completed at least 6 years, but...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013316
The applicant's military personnel records show that he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 8 years on 23 December 1983. The Court dismissed the applicants claim insofar as he requested that the Court order his retroactive promotion because the Court does not have jurisdiction to review and order military promotion decisions. The period of time (i.e., 3 months) from initial computation and/or recomputation of promotion points to the effective date of promotion point...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075829C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that on 1 March 2001, the promotion date for all soldiers that had met the cut off scores were promoted; however, he didn’t received any orders nor was he on the promotion list. The letter from PERSCOM to the member of congress clearly states that as a result of his conversion he was not eligible to compete for promotion in the 68N PMOS.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605407C070209
The clerk stated that if the documents had been submitted on time the applicant would have been promoted in May. The applicant submitted a request for exception to policy on 25 April 1995, requesting that he be promoted on 1 May 1995 because of the circumstances concerning his documents for reevaluation of his promotion points. On 3 November 1995 an official of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Promotions Branch acknowledged the negligence involved in the processing of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508802C070209
The applicant states that he submitted a request for promotion point revaluation (DA Form 3355-E) to his personnel administrative center (PAC) on 3 November 1994 to increase his promotion point total from 736 to 764. The applicant requested that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) grant an exception to policy and that he be promoted to Staff Sergeant. Notwithstanding the PERSCOM opinion, the applicants reevaluated promotion point score of 764 should have been received and processed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019751
The applicant provides: * a memorandum from her previous unit commander, recommending she receive 150 duty performance points for her battalion's June 2010 semi-centralized promotion board * the supporting documentation that substantiates her promotion board administrative points * a memorandum from the President of the Board, Headquarters, Special Troops Battalion, I Corps, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, dated 2 June 2010, subject: Promotion Board Proceedings for Promotion to SGT and Staff...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059557C070421
Counsel presents the applicant’s request for reconsideration and new requests for relief, evidence contentions, and conclusions in a five-page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) with no attachments. In the request for reconsideration, counsel essentially is seeking the same relief considered in part by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR1999032387, specifically to correct his records by restoring him [the applicant] to active duty in pay grade E-6 or at least...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708431C070209
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unjustly denied retired pay for over 24 years of AFS because he had only served 24 years of service. On 13 December 1995 the applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement for length of service to be effective 30 November 1996. While it is unfortunate that the applicant was prevented from serving more than 24 years of AFS due to his inability to exceed his RCP by more than 29 days and because of the requirement to retire on the first day of...