| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his date of rank to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 be backdated to 1 May 1998.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was unjustly removed from the promotion list due to an injury he sustained at the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service in the Army National Guard, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 March 1990. He was selected for promotion to SFC by the May 1997 promotion board in primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer). He was conditionally promoted to SFC effective 1 May 1998.
The applicant arrived at ANCOC Class 99-01 at Fort Leonard Wood, MO in January 1999. On 11 January 1999, the class was taking the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) in a gym due to inclement weather. The applicant was apparently tripped by another soldier while taking the 2-mile run. He injured his knee and was carried off the track. He was diagnosed with a medial collateral ligament (MCL) strain of his left knee. He was placed on crutches and given a temporary profile. He was then told that he would not be enrolled in ANCOC Class 99-01 due to his injury and being on crutches.
A Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, DA Form 2173, dated 10 August 1999 indicates that the applicant was running on the street, slipped on a piece of ice and twisted his knee.
By letter dated 12 January 1999, Command Sergeant Major (CSM) B___, the Commandant of the Fort Leonard Wood Noncommissioned Officer Academy informed the applicant’s unit that the applicant was being denied enrollment in ANCOC because he failed the APFT, specifically the run event.
By endorsement dated 12 January 1999, the applicant acknowledged that he was counseled by the Commandant on being denied enrollment in ANCOC. He checked that he read and understood the information presented against him and he elected not to make a statement.
On 22 March 1999, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) informed the applicant that his name was administratively removed from the promotion list due to his being denied enrollment to ANCOC due to APFT failure. His promotion orders were revoked.
The applicant appealed his removal to the NCO Education System (NCOES) Reinstatement Panel. He provided letters of support from his chain of command and from CSM B___. The CSM’s memorandum dated 19 May 1999 stated that the applicant was injured during the APFT through no fault of his own. The NCOES Reinstatement Panel disapproved the applicant’s for reinstatement to SFC on 1 November 1999.
The applicant remained on a temporary profile until around 2 November 1999. The Physical Profile form, DA Form 3349, dated 2 August 1999 authorized no regular APFT or alternate APFT.
The applicant was again selected for promotion to SFC in MOS 12B by the June 1999 selection board. Since he was a prior NCOES failure, he was not authorized a conditional promotion. He would be promoted on the date he graduated from ANCOC.
In March 2000, the applicant was reclassified into primary MOS 79R (Recruiter). It cannot be determined if this reclassification was medically required or not. He completed 79R ANCOC on 7 September 2000. He was promoted to SFC with a date of rank and effective date of rank of 7 September 2000.
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from PERSCOM Promotions Branch. That office recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.
The applicant rebutted the advisory opinion. He reiterated that he did not fail the APFT; it was an injury that kept him from being enrolled in ANCOC. He believed that he was treated unjustly by being removed from the promotion list and losing over two years time in grade over an injury that was not even his fault.
The U. S. Army Physical Fitness School at Fort Benning, GA was asked for policy guidance concerning APFT failures. The point of contact explained that their reasoning in calling an APFT failure a failure even if it appears that the failure is due to an injury or illness is because it is so difficult to determine if the injury or illness was not caused by the soldier being ill-prepared. For example, the soldier may have collapsed because he was not in good physical condition.
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Institutional Training Division was asked for guidance concerning APFT failures. The point of contact stated that an academy commandant has the informal authority to determine that a soldier did not complete, as opposed to failed, an APFT. PERSCOM, NCOES Branch also stated that an academy commandant can determine that a soldier did not complete an APFT due to medical reasons and release the soldier from the course without prejudice.
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 fails to adequately address the contradictory statements by CSM B___. In January 1999, the Commandant stated the applicant failed the APFT. The applicant did not rebut this statement; in fact, he failed to make any statement regarding his denial of enrollment. In May 1999, the Commandant stated the applicant’s injury was sustained through no fault of his own but failed to address why he did not determine the APFT to be incomplete rather than a failure. In the absence of such an explanation from CSM B___ the Board presumes that the determination that the applicant failed the APFT was correct and that he was properly removed from the E-7 promotion list.
2. 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
__jh____ __mhm___ __ewl___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052128 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010801 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069036C070402
This policy stated that soldiers, who have not yet attended ANCOC prior to their effective date of promotion to SFC, would be promoted "conditionally." The evidence of record shows that the applicant was administered an APFT on 11 April 2000, for preenrollment at ANCOC and failed the push-up event, which precluded him from attending ANCOC. The applicant's case was reviewed by the USAR AGR Enlisted Reduction Panel, which determined that the applicant should be reduced in rank for failing to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075439C070403
It states that a soldier who accepts a promotion with the condition that he or she must enroll in, and successfully complete, a specified NCOES course, and fails to meet those conditions, or is subsequently denied enrollment, or becomes an academic failure, or does not meet graduation requirements, or is declared a "No Show," will be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion. It states that under promotion procedures of this regulation, a soldier may be promoted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072622C070403
Because a record APFT taken within 60 days of attendance was required for him to attend the ANCOC, he took the APFT on 3 June 1999, and he failed the 2 mile run portion of the test, which resulted in his failure of the record APFT. The applicant concluded his reinstatement request to PERSCOM by commenting that the Baltimore Recruiting Command, his unit, failed him and the Army by failing to abide by Army regulations, policies, and procedures. The Board also finds no evidence to show that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069532C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The orders clearly stated that soldiers promoted from SSG to SFC who do not have ANCOC credit are promoted conditionally and will have their promotions revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to meet the ANCOC requirement. In his application to this Board, the applicant blames his APFT failures on his November 1999 knee surgery, contending...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069572C070402
The packet submitted by the applicant’s battalion commander also includes confirmation of the applicant’s medical problems between April 2000 and August 2001, and a medical document that verifies that she was placed on a temporary physical profile on 8 August 2001, which prevented her attendance at her scheduled September 2001 ANCOC class. The evidence of record and the applicant’s battalion commander confirm that she was on a valid temporary physical profile that prohibited her attendance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067378C070402
In support of his application, he submits a memorandum addressed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR); a memorandum from the Chief of the Training Analysis Management Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM); a memorandum from the Chief of Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch; a copy of Order Number 206-6, dated 25 July 2001, removing him from the SFC Promotion List; a memorandum appealing his dismissal from the ANCOC Class Number (PH1) 009-01; a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061444C070421
He then went to see SGM R. and requested that his school date be postponed until July 1999. Army Regulation 351-1 provides in pertinent part, that ANCOC training prepares Department of the Army selected SSG and SFC for leadership positions at platoon sergeant level. However, the request itself did not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of being prepared to attend ANCOC as scheduled, since any request may be denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100686C070208
In a 27 June 2003 surgical follow-up report, the applicant's attending physician offered the opinion that the applicant's back condition had its onset with the injury recorded in 1992 and that the condition was exacerbated during the April 2001 APFT. The applicant's Noncommissioned Officers Evaluations Reports (NCOERs), for the reporting periods between December 1998 and April 2004, indicate that he successfully performed duties as a sergeant first class (SFC) and was recommended for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066589C070402
The applicant was again rescheduled to attend in May 2001, but could not attend due to failure of a record APFT on 24 April 2001. Army Regulation 614-200, provides in pertinent part, that soldiers must meet the prerequisites contained in Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-4 to attend a service school, to include ANCOC. The applicant should have obtained a temporary profile prior to the 24 April 2001 APFT, which would have again delayed his attendance at ANCOC or obtained a permanent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074341C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, if proper procedures were followed in accordance with Army Regulation 140-158, he would be attending ANCOC in the rank of SFC. It states, in pertinent part, that when a soldier fails to complete a required NCOES course, the soldier's name will be removed from a promotion list, and if conditionally promoted, the soldier will be reduced in accordance with paragraph 7-12d.