| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, a waiver of 21 days, promotion to the pay grade of E-6 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances as well as separation pay in the pay grade of E-6.
APPLICANT STATES: That on 4 May 2000 he was flagged and placed under investigation. On 1 June 2000 he met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 but could not be promoted because he was flagged. He further states that he was also flagged on 25 August 2000 because he was placed on the overweight program. The investigation was favorably closed a year later on 1 May 2001. However, because he could not complete the 1-year service remaining obligation for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 by 21 days due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS) he was not promoted. He continues by stating that by the time the investigation ended with the charges being unsubstantiated, he was being chaptered out of the Army for being overweight. He also states that had the investigation not lasted for a year, he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6; accordingly, he should have been promoted and separated in the pay grade of E-6.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 2 August 1988 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 August 1992 and his last reenlistment was on 13 November 1998 for a period of 2 years. He extended that enlistment on 6 November 2000 for a period of 6 months. His ETS was established as 12 May 2001.
On 4 May 2000 a suspension of favorable personnel actions (flagging action) was initiated against the applicant. The circumstances surrounding this action are not present in the available records; however, the flag was removed on 1 May 2001, with the case being closed favorably.
On 1 May 2001, the applicant submitted a request for a 30-day waiver of the service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6. He asserted in his request that he would have extended or reenlisted had he not been flagged and that he would have been promoted had the investigation not taken so long. The commander recommended approval of his request and there is no evidence in the available records to show what the final action was taken in his case or if the request was processed to finality.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records; however, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-5 on 11 May 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 18, for Weight Control Failure. He had served 12 years, 9 months and 10 days of total active service and received one-half separation pay in the amount of $15,360.44.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures governing enlisted promotions. It provides, in pertinent part, that when a delay of promotion has occurred because of a suspension of favorable personnel actions that is subsequently favorably closed, and the soldier would have been promoted while the suspension was in effect, he or she will be promoted with an effective date and date of rank of their peers. That regulation also provides that the service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 is 12 months. Personnel who do not have 12 months remaining in service must take steps to meet the service remaining obligation before orders are published or the promotion is accomplished. A soldier’s separation from the service before fulfilling the service remaining obligation does not invalidate the promotion if the service remaining requirements were met at the time of promotion.
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 this requirement.
2. By the applicant’s own admission, he was under two separate flags simultaneously, one for an investigation that began in May 2000 and lasted until May 2001. The other flag imposed in August 2000 was for being in the overweight program. While he has provided no documentation to show that the flag was lifted, his records do show that he was discharged for weight control failure.
3. The Board also notes that he was flagged before he met the cut-off score. Had the case been resolved sooner, it appears that he would have been promoted as long as it occurred prior to the August 2000 flag being imposed and he took steps to meet the service remaining requirements to accept the promotion. This was not the case and the applicant has failed to show through the evidence of record or the evidence submitted with his application that he has been unjustly denied a promotion.
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
___pm __ __rjw ___ __kwl ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057392 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 319 | 131.0900/ADV IN GRD |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087548C070212
The applicant was not considered and selected for promotion to CW4 until the 2002 board convened. Documentation in his records shows that he completed a physical examination effective 3 January 2001 and his FLAG was favorably removed effective 12 January 2001; therefore, his promotion effective and date of rank for CW4 should be the approval date of the 2002 RCSB. The Board concludes that the 2002 CW4 promotion board considered and selected the individual and he should have been promoted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006287
She request an exception to the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-29 (Officer Promotion) so that her date of rank can be corrected to reflect her actual effective date of rank of 1 May 2012. On 20 March 2015, HRC published Orders Number 079-003 promoting the applicant to LTC with an effective date and DOR as 9 March 2015. Immediately thereafter, her flag was removed, as required by regulation, and she was promoted to LTC on that date (9 March 2015).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078668C070215
A fifth measurement was taken by the unit weight control NCO on 28 February 2001, which had resulted in a determination that the applicant met the body fat standard. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was denied attendance at the ANCOC based on his being under a FLAG action, as a result of his being in an overweight status on 4 January 2001, the scheduled date of his ANCOC class. Also, on 28 February 2001, when the unit weight control NCO determined he met the weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085155C070212
The applicant was removed from the promotion list by the appropriate authority and the PERSCOM opined that his request should be denied. Paragraph 1-19 provides, in pertinent part, that an officer's promotion is automatically delayed (this is, the officer is not promoted in spite of the publication of promotion orders) when the officer is under investigation that may result in disciplinary action of any kind being taken against him or her, is under, or should be under, suspension of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050015092C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that the record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) (DA Form 2627) dated 18 December 2003 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File, that the punishment be set aside, that he be reinstated to the pay grade of E-7 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances and credit for time served for the period of 29 December 2003 to 25 March 2004 while his unit was in Iraq and award of the National Defense Service Medal (3rd award), the Global War on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009701
The applicant provides a copy of a Recommended List for Promotion of Enlisted Personnel, a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)), retirement orders, and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to SSG/E-6 because the FLAG that was in effect against him was removed before he was separated from active duty. The evidence of record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020402
The applicant provides copies of the following: * Enlisted Record Brief * DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * two Enlisted Promotion Reports * Memorandum for Record (MFR) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received an overweight FLAG on 20 November 2012 (a FLAG, dated 18 October 2012, was removed due to being erroneous) for not being in compliance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020178
e. Official documentation initiating elimination action against him occurred in January 2010. f. Had the flag been lifted on time to allow him to be promoted in December 2009, he would have been eligible for consideration by the YG 2007 CPT Promotion Board that was held in December 2009. g. A DA Form 78-R (Recommendation for Promotion to 1LT/CW2) was not completed by his command to obtain a determination to place him in a non-promotable status. The evidence of record shows on: * 10 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607669C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the effective date and date of rank (DOR) for his promotion to the pay grade of E-4 be corrected to show that he was promoted on 10 January 1996. After an evaluation by medical personnel it was discovered that his weight gain was the result of a medical reason and he was removed from the weight control program on 27 March 1996 and promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 April 1996. That regulation also states that commanders may advance soldiers to the pay grades of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010710
The applicant provides copies of the following orders published by Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support (TS)), Houston, Texas, Orders 07-150-00004, dated 30 May 2007; Orders 07-215-00004, dated 3 August 2007; Orders 07-215-00005, dated 3 August 2007; Orders 07-215-00006, dated 3 August 2007; and Orders 07-218-00001, dated 6 August 2007. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was promoted to MSG (E-8) effective and with a DOR of 1 May 2008. While the evidence of record...