Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706918
Original file (9706918.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to show he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC) in 1970 and to Master Sergeant (MSG) in 1977.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was told he should have been promoted to SFC when Department of the Army (DA) centralized promotions to SFC, MSG and Sergeant Major in 1970 because he was already on a promotion standing list. He was intransit at the time, and when he inprocessed at his new unit he was told he was not on a promotion list, he was on a lineal list, which meant only he might be eligible for promotion.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show:

After prior Army service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 23 September 1959. He was recommended for promotion to SFC on 25 March 1970 and placed on a local promotion list. He was promoted to SFC effective 1 October 1977, through the DA centralized promotion system. He retired on 30 September 1979, with over 21 years of creditable active service, in pay grade E-7.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command, Promotions Branch. That opinion noted that, as outlined in DA Message 282226Z May 70, DA assumed control of the selection process for promotion to SFC effective 1 June 1970. At that time all local recommended lists were frozen, soldiers on the lists to be considered for promotion by the first centralized selection board which convened on 25 August 1970. If a soldier was not selected by that board, he was automatically afforded consideration by the next two boards regardless of eligibility criteria specified for those boards. The applicant was considered but not selected by the August 1970, November 1971, January 1973, November 1973, September 1974 and March 1976 boards. He was selected by the January 1977 board and promoted effective 1 October 1977.

The applicant rebutted this opinion. He stated that DA Message 282226Z May 70 was preceded by another letter authorizing local commands to promote all E-6s presently on local promotion lists to E-7 prior to DA taking over the promotions to this grade. He states he was denied this opportunity for promotion because he was intransit.

Conversation by an examiner from this Board with the Promotions Branch on 14 August 1998 indicated that they know nothing of a message or letter giving instructions of this kind. The applicant or his informant may be confused because the cited message authorized local promotion authorities to add individuals, not to exceed a certain percentage of the list as constituted on 30 May 1970, to their promotion list. The intent of that add-on provision was to allow local selection on a competitive basis of high quality individuals who could not attain previous list status because of a lack of local position vacancies or overcrowded lists.

 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 satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2. The cited DA message was clear that local promotions to SFC were frozen effective 1 June 1970 so those soldiers on local lists could be considered by the first centralized selection board on 25 August 1970.

3. The applicant has provided no evidence of a letter that allowed promotion authorities to promoted all E-6s on their lists.

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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



 Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706918C070209

    Original file (9706918C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show: After prior Army service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 23 September 1959. He stated that DA Message 282226Z May 70 was preceded by another letter authorizing local commands to promote all E-6s presently on local promotion lists to E-7 prior to DA taking over the promotions to this grade. The cited DA message was clear that local promotions to SFC were frozen effective 1 June 1970 so those soldiers on local lists could be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020253

    Original file (20120020253.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence of record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he was placed on a permanent recommended list for promotion to E-7 or that he was promoted to E-7 prior to his retirement on 31 January 1977. To standardize promotion qualification and to ensure promotion of the best qualified Soldiers, recommendation by a promotion selection board and placement on a permanent recommended promotion list is required for all promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019998

    Original file (20090019998.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 in May 1973 and consideration for any subsequent promotions he may have been eligible for based on the corrected date of promotion to SSG/E-6. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in May 1973. Although the applicant states his detachment commander informed him he had no way to convene a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001627C070205

    Original file (20060001627C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that he be advanced on the retired list to the rank of master sergeant (MSG), E-8. There are no orders in the applicant’s service records which show he was promoted to MSG. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3961(b) states that, unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Army not covered by section 3961a) (which discusses commissioned officers) who retires other than for physical disability retires...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006308

    Original file (20140006308.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 December 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140006308 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Recently, the Department of the Army assisted him in obtaining 8 awards, including the Silver Star, earned in Vietnam. A centralized promotion system has been in effect for promotion of enlisted Soldiers since 1 January 1969 for SGM, 1 March 1969 for MSG, and 1 June 1970 for SFC.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008880

    Original file (20130008880.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 20100013263

    Original file (20100013263.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows the governing Army regulation provides that 75 days are allowed for processing annual NCOERs after the Thru date. The evidence of record shows the applicant was due a mandatory annual report with a Thru date of 30 July 2009. The evidence of record shows that an NCOER received after the specified cut-off date that does not get posted to the board file will not be a basis for STAB consideration.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012030

    Original file (20110012030.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Requests received after 24 September 2010 will be processed in the order received but may not appear before the board; (8) paragraph 9b states, "In order to guarantee processing prior to board, all mandatory or optional NCOER's must be received, error free, in the Evaluation Reports Branch, HRC, not later than by close of business on 1 October 2010"; e. an undated ATRRS Request for Cancellation/Substitution Form showing his 1SG Course was cancelled because of his flag; f. an email from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015862

    Original file (20080015862.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 February 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015862 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides a memorandum, subject: Notification and Acknowledgement of Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Professional Filler Deployment System (PDS) PROFIS; a Personnel Action and a Personnel Action Form Addendum; his orders for deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, dated 5 April 2007; a memorandum, subject: Administrative Removal from the Promotion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002888C070205

    Original file (20060002888C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any orders or documents that indicate the applicant was ever selected for promotion to the pay grade E-8 by a properly constituted promotion selection board, or that he was promoted to a pay grade above E-7 by proper authority while serving on active duty. Further, by law, Soldiers are retired in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD. It also shows he was never selected for promotion to the pay grade...