Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711786
Original file (9711786.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Consideration of adjustment of his date of rank to Sergeant First Class (SFC E-7) and recommendation for selection to promotion to Master Sergeant (MSG E-8).
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that due to major administrative errors, his records did not appear before the SFC selection boards from 1990 through 1994. The two errors were the appearance of reenlistment code 9G (soldier has reached his retention control point) on his records and the non-availability of a Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCO-ER) ending period October 1991 for consideration due to an erroneous non-rated code being shown on it.
After the two errors were corrected, his records were looked at by the next SFC promotion selection board and he was selected for promotion. He feels if the errors had not been on his records and the earlier boards could have reviewed his records as they would have looked without them, he would have been selected for promotion earlier.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 February 1976. He continued to serve on active duty and was promoted to pay grade E-6 with a date of rank of 4 July 1985.

The applicant was eligible for secondary zone promotion consideration in 1987 and 1988.

The applicant was first eligible for primary zone promotion consideration with the 1989 board. He was considered but not recommended for promotion.

The applicant claims that the erroneous reenlistment code of 9G first appeared on his records after his 1989 reenlistment (which carried him to within one year of his then retention control point for a Staff Sergeant, E-6) and it prevented his records from even being looked at by the 1990 through 1994 boards. (His actual reenlistment may have been 8 November 1990. One set of reenlistment contracts show he reenlisted on 8 November 1990 for 5 years. 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.)

The applicant claims that an erroneous non-rated code prevented his NCO-ER, ending period October 1991, from being seen by a promotion board until after he finally got the code along with his height/weight data corrected in August 1993.
The NCO-ER was accepted by the NCO-ER Branch on 14 November 1991. It should have been available for the January 1993 Board, even with its errors, but was not.

A review of the 1988 through 1993 SFC Selection Board results revealed that he was considered for but not recommended for promotion. Note: No board at all was held in 1992.

The applicant was selected for promotion to SFC in 1994. He was promoted to SFC with a date of rank of 1 February 1996.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of enlisted personnel on active duty. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous nonconsideration due to administrative error, the fact that action by a previous board was contrary to law, or because material error existed in the record at the time of consideration. Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual’s nonselection by a promotion board and that, had such error been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.

The following is one item that does not constitute material error and will not be a reason for reconsideration: Incorrect data on DA Form 2A and DA Form 2-1 reviewed by the soldier prior to the qualification record being forwarded to the board. Part of the preboard processing for NCOs in the zone of consideration is for them to review and sign DA Form 2A and 2-1 for submission to the board. The reenlistment eligibility code is an item that appears on the DA Form 2A.

Reconsideration normally will be granted when the following condition exists: A regular NCO-ER that was submitted early enough for processing and filing before the convening date of the board was not reviewed. Seventy-five days is allowed for processing after the ending month of the report.

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. He will be notified through command channels of the board’s results in late July 1998.

If the applicant is recommended for promotion by the May 1998 STAB and if his date of rank resulting therefrom is early enough (about 1 September 1994), he may then be eligible for consideration for promotion to MSG, E-8 by a STAB under the 1997 criteria.

 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, it is concluded:

1. The applicant’s records were looked at by the SFC Selection Boards for the years he questions, 1990 through 1994.

2. The applicant was selected for promotion by the 1994 board and was promoted to SFC with a date of rank of 1 February 1996.

3. The applicant was not granted STAB promotion reconsideration based upon his erroneous reenlistment eligibility code as it is not considered to constitute material error.

4. The applicant was granted STAB promotion reconsideration based upon the absence of his NCO-ER, ending period October 1991, for the earliest possible board date for which that NCO-ER could have been reviewed. This would be the 1993 SFC board, as there was no board held in 1992.

5. 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 | CY2002 | 2002078028C070215

    Original file (2002078028C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly denied promotion consideration to the pay grade of E-7 by the 1991 Sergeant First Class (SFC) Promotion Selection Board because his bar to reenlistment was not removed from his records by the time the selection board convened. His counsel contends, in effect, that because the applicant was not considered by the 1991 SFC Promotion Selection Board, he was unjustly denied subsequent promotions to the pay grades of E-8 and E-9, which has...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017341

    Original file (20090017341.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board noted that an Enlisted STAB denied the applicant's request to remove the DA QMP bar to reenlistment and that an Enlisted Special Review Board denied his request to remove the relief for cause NCOER. There is no evidence the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 to show he was retired from active duty in the rank of SSG/pay grade E-6 with an effective date of pay grade of 1 August 1993. A letter from the applicant to DFAS, dated 12 May 2009, in which he stated that he retired from...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006839

    Original file (20110006839.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dodson appealed the EER to the Appeal Board. While Dodson’s EER Appeal was pending, on 29 March 1983 the PSB barred Dodson from reenlisting (QMP). It was not until after he received the QMP decision that he appealed the EERs and appealed the QMP decision to the STAB.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086015C070212

    Original file (2003086015C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that her noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period May 1991 through September 1991 be removed from her records, that she receive the promotions that were denied her due to the unjust rating, and, in effect, that she be granted a 30-year retirement. The Board has considered the applicant's further requests that she receive the promotions that were denied her due to the unjust rating, and, in effect, that she be granted a 30-year retirement. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052654C070420

    Original file (2001052654C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003086775C070212

    Original file (2003086775C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508824C070209

    Original file (9508824C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further states that he successfully appealed the bar to reenlistment and was subsequently selected by the CY 1991 E-7 promotion selection board and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. It opined that the applicant was considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 by the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board and was barred to reenlistment under the QMP by that board. Army Regulation 600-200 serves as the authority for selection and promotion to pay grades E-7 through E-9.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008588

    Original file (20110008588.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    When he transferred from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to the Regular Army (RA) his SFC date of rank (DOR) was erroneously recorded as 14 May 2007, the date of his RA enlistment. He received a memorandum stating he would not be looked at due to the error in his DOR and he was also told the DOR of 14 May 2007 needed to be corrected on his DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States), since his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) correctly shows his DOR as 1 August...

  • 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...