| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-6 or E-7 with retroactive payment back to 1995.
APPLICANT STATES: That he “was by passed for promotion on 3 different occasions, none of which was through my fault. This is a grave injustice, being qualified, yet by passed for promotion, in the manner in which this was done, by units I was assigned to.” In support of his request, he provides 12 letters of support, 12 miscellaneous military documents (evaluation reports and certificates), an Institutional Trade Instructor I (Cooking) classification for the state of New Jersey, a cleaning chart for Marlboro Camp (sic), and a task list for Military Occupational Specialty 94B30.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
During the period 6 September to 6 October 1956, the applicant served in the US Air Force and received a General Discharge.
During the period 23 August 1975 to 29 July 1990, he served in the Army Reserve (USAR).
On 13 August 1978, he was promoted to pay grade E-5.
During the period 30 July 1990 to 24 February 1992, he served in the New Jersey Army National Guard.
During the period 25 February 1992 to 14 March 1995, he served in a USAR Troop Program Unit.
On 12 February 1995, after being advised his unit was being inactivated or reorganized, he declined assignment to a position in another unit, requested transfer to the IRR without benefits and indicated he had 19 years qualified service for non-regular retired pay. He was formally counseled on this date.
On 15 March 1995, he was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).
On 17 April 1999, he was placed on the Retired List, in pay grade E-5.
The Board notes that the applicant was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-6 on one occasion; however, he was never selected for or promoted to pay grades E-6 or E-7.
This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.
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. The applicant is not entitled to promotion to E-6 or E-7 with retroactive payment back to 1995. His contentions and evidence have been reviewed; however, they do not support his request.
2. Based on the available records, there is no indication the applicant ever officially served in a position calling for pay grade E-6 or E-7.
3. There is no evidence the applicant was ever selected for or promoted to pay grade E-6 or E-7; therefore, he is not entitled to promotion to either of those grades now.
4. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes the presumption of regularity in this case.
5. 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 this requirement.
6. 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
_cla____ _dph____ _clg____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056777 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003278
After completing 2 years, 11 months and 29 day of net active service in the enlisted ranks of the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) as a second lieutenant (O1), effective 16 June 1984. During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the United States Army Human Resources Command, St Louis, Missouri, Chief, Transition and Separations who states that the applicant is currently serving actively as a Medical Corp officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015492
She could not pass the APFT and never had. In order to be eligible for promotion to SGT, a Soldier must have a passing APFT score among other requirements and any previously-initiated flag must have been lifted from his or her record. ____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074853C070403
In accordance with Army Regulation 600-200, dated 22 January 1988, paragraph 7-34c, soldiers who, for any reason, are not promoted to grade E-5 or E-6 on the first calendar day of the month will be entitled to increased pay and allowances from the date of the promotion order. In conclusion, the advisory opinion recommended that the applicant be granted retroactive pay and allowances from 1 through 25 September 1990. Therefore, based on the advisory opinion provided by PERSCOM, this Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011230C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, transfer to the Retired Reserve with entitlement to retired pay. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 3 December 1990, the date of his separation from the NYARNG. The applicant's ARNG Retirement Points History Statement, dated 14 October 2004, shows that as of his retirement year ending 3 December 1990, he was credited with 18 years, 3 months, and 12 days creditable service for retired pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003575
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070003575 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. At no time prior to his ETS had he ever received a briefing stating that his records would be subject to a promotion board during his IRR (civilian) status. His obligation to serve ended on 30 December 1997;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076921C070215
The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (AC95-11710) finalized their action on the applicant's April 1993 application on 21 February 1996 noting, as part of their action, that the applicant's transfer to the Retired Reserve was void and of no force or effect, that he was credited with qualifying service for Reserve retirement for his retirement years, from the date of his voided transfer to the Retired Reserve to the date he returned to the active Reserve. The Board believes that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010312C070206
The applicant provides a copy of a letter of recommendation for reinstatement to WO from the commander, 220th MP Detachment (CID). The regulation also specifies that officers who twice fail to be selected for promotion to the grade of chief warrant officer three will not be considered again for promotion, and will be transferred to the Retired Reserve, if they are eligible and request such transfer, or they will be discharged. Army Regulation 135-175 provides policy, criteria, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071416C070402
On 5 October 1995, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, advised the applicant that in accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, an officer must be in an active status to be eligible for promotion and not be placed on the active duty list (ADL). United States Code (USC), Title 10, section 14317(e) (Oct 96) specifies that USAR officers ordered to active duty in time of war or national emergency, may, if eligible, be considered for promotion by a mandatory promotion board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509682C070209
The applicant states, in effect, that he was denied reimbursement because his adoption procedures had been finalized prior to 5 December 1991 and there were no retroactive provisions provided for in the implementing legislation. On 11 August 1992, while serving as an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) member of the Texas Army National Guard in the pay grade of E-5, the applicant submitted an application to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for reimbursement of expenses in the amount...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089643C070403
The applicant provides a BNCOC course application dated17 October 2000. The applicant provides a second BNCOC course application dated 17 October 2000. Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 3-9a states that, to standardize promotion qualification throughout the USAR and to ensure promotion of the best qualified soldiers, promotion selection board action is required for all promotions to sergeant and staff sergeant.