| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement to the pay grade of E-7 and removal of all inaccurate and erroneous adverse information from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was erroneously removed from the E-7 Promotion Standing List on 20 August 1998 due to being enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program. However, he was improperly enrolled in that program without being given a medical examination to determine that his medical condition was the cause of his condition. He goes on to state that it has since been determined that such was the case and that he has been reinstated to the E-7 list; however, he cannot be promoted until such time as he completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). He further states that had his command followed the proper procedures, he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-7 conditionally and that once it was determined that his overweight condition was the result of a medical condition, he would have been allowed to retain his promotion until he could attend the ANCOC. However, he now has to serve in the pay grade of E-6 until such time as he completes the ANCOC. He also states that the improper actions by his command have caused damage to his professional, personal and family life and contends that all actions should be removed from his records and that he be allowed to serve in the rank that he earned, with entitlement to all back date of rank, pay and entitlements.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 24 February 1987 for a period of 4 years, airborne and ground surveillance systems operator training. He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 21 June 1994.
On 9 October 1997, orders were published which announced the conditional promotion of the applicant, effective 1 November 1997. The orders specified that the promotion was conditional on completion of ANCOC requirements and that the promotion would be revoked if individuals failed to meet those requirements.
On 4 December 1998, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) revoked the applicant’s promotion and removed him from the promotion standing list due to his being on the overweight program and because he was cancelled from ANCOC #98-006, for failure to meet weight control standards. He was granted De Facto status for the period of 7 November 1997 to 19 August 1998.
On 10 February 1999, the Department of the Army Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Reinstatement Panel disapproved the applicant’s request for reinstatement to the E-7 Promotion List.
The applicant applied to this Board on 9 November 1999 requesting reinstatement to the promotion list. At that time he indicated that he was scheduled to undergo surgery to correct his medical condition. During the processing of the applicant’s case, a medical advisory opinion was obtained which opined that the medical diagnoses of the applicant’s condition was sufficient to explain the applicant’s overweight condition. However, because the applicant had not exhausted his administrative remedies, the Board advised the applicant that once he had completed his medical procedures, exhausted his administrative remedies, completed the ANCOC, and requested reinstatement from the PERSCOM, he could re-apply to the Board.
On 17 November 1999, the PERSCOM notified the applicant that he had been removed from the Drill Sergeant Program due to his being enrolled in the overweight program for the second time within 1 year and his revocation of his promotion to the pay grade of E-7.
On 6 September 2000, the applicant was reinstated to the Promotion Selected List by the NCOES Reinstatement Panel with the condition that he attend and complete ANCOC before he would be promoted.
A review of the applicant’s evaluation reports shows that the applicant failed to meet weight control standards in 1991, 1997 and 1999. A review of his performance and service fiche fails to show any derogatory documents. All documents related to his removal from the promotion list and application to this Board are contained in his restricted fiche.
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. While the applicant may not agree with the PERSCOM decision to delay his promotion until he completes the ANCOC, given the circumstances in this case and the applicant’s history of weight problems, the Board is inclined to agree with the decision not to promote him again until he completes the conditional requirements.
2. Therefore, the Board stands by it’s previous directions to the applicant which informed the applicant that he could re-apply to this Board once he had completed the ANCOC and failed to receive retroactive promotion with all back pay and allowances (minus the De facto period) from the PERSCOM.
3. The Board has considered the applicant’s request to remove derogatory information from his records. However, the applicant has failed to specify which documents he desires to be removed and has failed to provide evidence to support removal of such documents. Inasmuch as the Army has a reason for maintaining records of circumstances such as the applicant’s and he has failed to show they are in error, there is no basis to grant his request at this time.
4. The applicant’s contention that his commander erroneously removed him from the promotion list because of his being in the weight control program appears to be without merit. The PERSCOM was the approving authority for the applicant’s removal from the promotion list and that action was based not only because he was in the weight control program but also because he was a no-show for ANCOC.
5. The commander did not have to request a medical evaluation to enter the applicant into the weight control program unless he had reason to believe that there might be some underlying medical reason associated with the weight gain. While this assistance is available, it is not required. Although the applicant was subsequently determined to have a medical condition that caused his weight problems, he still has not completed the conditional requirement for promotion and the Board is not inclined to direct that he again be promoted when the circumstances that caused his original removal/promotion revocation has not been resolved.
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
__mdm__ ___jhl ___ __jm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058226 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000/PROM TO E7 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012408
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The sergeant major informed the applicant that he would not be allowed to attend ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of AR 600-9 and would subsequently be demoted to the grade of E-6 based upon his conditional promotion. The applicant did not provide evidence to show, and his records do not indicate that his medical condition required processing through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).
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 | CY2004 | 20040009089C070208
The Army's ANCOC general attendance policy, outlined by the NCOES branch at the Army's personnel center, states that Soldiers who, on or after 1 October 1993, accept a conditional promotion, and who are subsequently denied enrollment, declared a no-show, become academic failures, or otherwise do not meet graduation requirements, will have their promotions revoked and will be administratively removed from the centralized promotion list. Army Regulation established the policy that if a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088494C070403
He stated that after reviewing the applicant's December 2000 body fat content worksheet and his height and weight data dating back to February 1999, evaluation reports, and related medical documentation, he believed that his weight gain of approximately 18 pounds was directly related to his hernia, the repair surgery, and his physical inability to conduct a rigorous fitness regime from December 2000 through October 2001. Therefore, the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011756C070206
The applicant states that his command did not adhere to Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) when they removed him from the promotion list by not documenting and justifying his reduction or giving him the proper counseling on the basis of his removal. He stated that his recommendation for removal from the promotion list for not meeting weight requirements was not within the time prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), which states a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061235C070421
The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC and to the pay grade of E-7. A staff member of the Board also reviewed similar cases that have been reviewed by the Board and finds that in all such cases, the Board supported the PERSCOM decision to promote individuals who had been reinstated after they completed the ANCOC; however, it was always with a retroactive DOR (to the date they were originally promoted), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances (minus the de facto...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080679C070215
In February 2002, the applicant submitted a request asking that he be reinstated on the promotion list and that he be scheduled to attend the ANCOC. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the effective date and date of rank of his promotion to SFC/E-7 should be restored to 8 January 2000, because the revocation of this promotion was based on an unverified and flawed body fat measurement that resulted in his unjustly being denied enrollment in the ANCOC, and it finds this claim has...
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 | CY2006 | 20060012177C070205
The applicant states, in effect, the denial of his request for reconsideration of his case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) by the Board staff was inappropriate and that he has submitted two prior claims to the Board for consideration in July 2005 and again in April 2006. During its review of the applicant's case, the Board found that the applicant was conditionally promoted to SFC/E-7 contingent upon his completion of the Advance Noncommissioned Officer Course...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002762C070208
A 15 July 2002 memorandum, the document which the applicant is asking to be removed from his file, states that the applicant’s name was administratively removed from the promotion list based on his “release from ANCOC due to [his] failure to meet the standards of AR [Army Regulation] 600-9.” Army Regulation 600-9 established the Army’s Weight Control Program. Although the applicant has requested that the 15 July 2002 memorandum notifying him of his removal from ANCOC be expunged from his...