| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member | |
| Mr. Robert W. Garrett | Member |
2. The applicant requests that he be granted back pay and allowances associated with an erroneous promotion to pay grade E-8 and that, in effect, his original 1 July 1994 promotion to E-8 be reinstated. He states, in effect, that he was promoted to pay grade E-8 in his “secondary MOS” but subsequently, through no fault of his own, the promotion was revoked. He notes in an October 1994 memo to the Army Inspector General that he should have been reclassified to specialty 92Y but was classified in specialty 92A instead. He stated that although he was confused about the classification officials at his serving personnel office told him “that the reclassification action was ‘top fed’ at the Total Army Personnel Command.” He indicated that he was erroneously promoted to E-8 in that specialty (92A) and the subsequent revocation resulted in his indebtedness to the Government. In support of his request he submits copies of a March and June 1994 DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record) which indicates a primary specialty of 92A
3. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant served in the Air Force between 1972 and 1977 and enlisted in the Army on 30 August 1977 in specialty 76Y (unit supply specialist). On 13 October 1987 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-7 in specialty 76Y. He continued to hold specialty 76Y as his primary specialty (PMOS) until early 1993 when he was converted to specialty 92Y as part of an Army wide conversion project. A performance evaluation report completed in June 1993 for the period February 1993 through May 1993 confirms his primary specialty as 92Y.
4. The applicant’s next performance evaluation report, completed in November 1993, reflects a primary specialty of 92A although the following report again shows a PMOS of 92Y.
5. On 25 March 1994 the applicant’s name appeared on the E-8 promotion selection list in specialty 92A. Orders promoting the applicant to pay grade E-8 in specialty 92A effective 1 July 1994 were issued by department of the Army on 24 May 1994 but revoked on 18 July 1994.
6. A 20 September 1994 record of telephone conversion between an official at the Total Army Personnel Command and the applicant’s servicing personnel officer, which the applicant provided with his application, notes the applicant was “picked up in [the] wrong MOS & promoted….” The conversion indicates the erroneous promotion orders were revoked and that the applicant’s name was returned to the E-8 promotion list and he would be promoted when his new sequence number came up.
7. The applicant was ultimately promoted to pay grade E-8 in his correct PMOS, 92Y, on 1 December 1994.
8. Army Regulation 611-201 (Enlisted Career Management Fields and Military Occupational Specialties), Issue Number 4, dated 1 April 1992 reflects a variety of specialties (MOSs) in the supply field including MOS 76Y (unit supply specialist), 76C, 76P, 76V and 76X. In 1993 individuals holding MOSs 76C, P, V and X began reclassification and transition to a single specialty, 92A (automated logistical specialist) and individuals holding MOS 76Y were transitioned to 92Y (unit supply specialist). Soldiers serving in pay grade E-8 and holding the capstone MOS 76Z at the time transition began were converted to specialty 92A. By 1 July 1994, when issue number 5 of Army Regulation 611-201 was published, all MOSs in the 76 career management field had been deleted from the Army’s inventory.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-19, which establishes the policies and provisions for the promotion of enlisted soldiers, states that erroneous promotions will be revoked. However, when a soldier has been erroneously promoted, a determination of “de facto” status may be made only to allow the soldier to keep any pay and allowances received at the higher grade when pay at the higher grade has been received, the soldier accepted the promotion or advancement in good faith, or orders announcing the promotion have been issued.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant admits that he should have been converted to specialty 92Y vice 92A and information in his records confirms that such was the case when the conversion initially took place in 1993. The subsequent appearance of 92A and his selection to E-8 in that specialty was clearly an error which was rectified by the revocation of the promotion order (18 July 1994) less than a month after the promotion effective date (1 July 1994).
2. It is likely that a de facto determination was not made when the promotion orders were revoked because they were revoked only 18 days after the effective date. It is unclear when the applicant became aware that the promotion orders were revoked, however, the telephone conversation which occurred in September 1994 appears to have been the initial date. The fact that he became indebted to the government as a result of the erroneous promotion also suggests that he was not aware of the revocation until after he began receiving the increased pay.
3. While it is unfortunate that the applicant was erroneously promoted the fact remains that he suspected he was classified in the wrong specialty and as a senior NCO should have been more aggressive in resolving the situation. The promotion was appropriately revoked as soon as the error was discovered and it would be inappropriate to allow him to retain the 1 July 1994 promotion date. However, clear procedures exist to allow him, via the de facto determination, to keep any monies he received as a result of the erroneous promotion and it would be in the interest of justice to grant the de facto status.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was granted de facto status when the 1 July 1994 promotion to pay grade E-8 was revoked thereby allowing him to retain any pay and allowances received at the higher grade.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied
BOARD VOTE:
__gdp___ ___cla__ ____rwg_ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AC |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199711778C070209
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 November 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-11778 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Orders promoting the applicant to pay grade E-8 in specialty 92A effective 1 July 1994 were issued by department of the Army on 24 May 1994 but revoked on 18 July 1994. A 20 September 1994 record of telephone conversion between...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020484
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 | CY2011 | 20110010596
He is entitled to have item 11 of his DD Form 214 corrected to show he held and served in this MOS 1 year and 8 months. He is entitled to have item 11 of his DD Form 214 corrected to show he held and served in this MOS 6 years. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting from item 11 of his DD Form 214 the entries "92A5M Automated Logistical - 26 Years 8 Months//92Y5M Unit Supply Specialist - 8 Years 1...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605048C070209
On 20 June 1991 the applicant was promoted to Sergeant pay grade E-5 and awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 73C20 (finance NCO). 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. An official from the OCAR, in an informal opinion, stated that the revocation of the order promoting the applicant was indeed correct - that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011623
The applicant requests that item 11 (Primary Specialty) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show she served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76C1O/2O (equipment records and parts specialist) and MOS 92A1O/2O (automated logistical specialist) instead of MOS 92B1O (medical laboratory specialist). Item 11 of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows she served in primary MOS 92B1O for 10 years and 7 months. Therefore, item 11 of her DD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017125
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110017125 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Also on 8 August 2011, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a DA Form 4187 requesting the applicant's promotion to SSG be revoked. He added: * The applicant was not given due process as the command had no authority to reduce her * The command did not conduct an administrative reduction board as required by Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017812C070206
The applicant requests that item 11 (Primary Specialty) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (automated logistical specialist) instead of 92Y (supply sergeant). Evidence of record shows the applicant was awarded primary MOS 76P4Q effective 13 August 1992. Since MOS 76P was converted to MOS 92A effective 1 April 1993, and MOS 92Y was not an authorized MOS, it would be appropriate to correct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003082299C070212
At the time the promotion was revoked, ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request for de facto status be granted in accordance with regulatory guidance. It states 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 allowances received in that status. In view of the facts of this case, and based on the de facto status determination and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022994
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 | CY2008 | 20080000585C080213
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...