| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his date of rank and effective date of promotion to captain be adjusted to 1 June 2000.
3. The applicant states that his original date of promotion was 1 June 2000. However, because he failed the run portion of the May 2000 Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) by 8 seconds, he was flagged and was not eligible for promotion on 1 June 2000. Since he was then injured and placed on profile, he was not eligible for his next record APFT until 8 November 2000. He passed, his flag was lifted, and he was promoted to captain with a date of rank and effective date of 8 November 2000. Then, in April 2001, the APFT track was measured and found to be approximately 60 yards too long, approximately a 25 second difference on the 2-mile run. Had the track been the proper length in May 2000, he would have passed the run portion, not been flagged, and would have been promoted on 1 June 2000.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was commissioned a second lieutenant on 6 September 1996 and entered active duty on 9 March 1997.
5. Order Number 139-076, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) dated 18 May 2000 promoted the applicant to captain effective 1 June 2000 with a date of rank of 1 June 2000. Order Number 005-057, PERSCOM dated 5 January 2001 amended these orders to change the effective date and date of rank to read 8 November 2000, apparently as a result of his being flagged for failing the May 2000 APFT.
6. Army Regulation 600-8-29 governs the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. Paragraph 1-21d(2) states that if an officer eligible for promotion fails to pass the most recent APFT or to take and pass the APFT within the period required because of his own fault, then the date of rank and effective date of promotion will be the day the officer passes the APFT.
7. The applicant provided a memorandum for record from his company commander substantiating the applicant’s contention that the APFT track was measured in April 2001 and found to be 60 yards too long and that it was reasonable to assume that his run event in May 2000 would have been a passing score had the track been the correct distance.
8. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, PERSCOM. That office recommended denial of the
applicant’s request because, although he had a memorandum for record from his company commander, there was no endorsement from his chain of command to support his claim.
9. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. He responded by providing three memoranda from his chain of command. A memorandum from his new company commander stated that the APFT track had been 65 yards too long and it was reasonable to assume that the applicant would have passed the APFT in May 2000 had the track been the correct distance. A memorandum from his battalion-level commander stated that the command was aware of the circumstances surrounding the delay in the applicant’s promotion and supported his request to change his effective date of rank to 1 June 2000. A memorandum from his brigade-level commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request to correct his date of rank.
10. On 11 January 2002, Promotions Branch, PERSCOM clarified their advisory opinion to reflect that they had meant that if the applicant’s battalion and brigade commanders both agreed that the May 2000 APFT was not valid, then the flag would have been invalid and he should have been promoted on 1 June 2000.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. In accordance with the advisory opinion and with the information obtained from the applicant’s chain of command, it appears that the May 2000 APFT, which the applicant failed, in turn preventing his promotion to captain on 1 June 2000, was invalid. Therefore, he should not have been flagged and he would have been eligible for promotion to captain on 1 June 2000.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the APFT the applicant completed in May 2000 was invalid, that he was not flagged for APFT failure, and that he was eligible for promotion to captain on 1 June 2000.
2. That the records be corrected to show the applicant was promoted to captain with an effective date and a date of rank 1 June 2000 with all due back pay and allowances.
BOARD VOTE:
__gdp___ __wtm___ __rtd___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
George D. Paxson
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001059871 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020124 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.04 |
| 2. | 131.05 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2001 | 2001055807C070420
Officer transferred into the IRR on 18 March 2001 and was promoted to major with a DOR of 18 March 2001. The Board further notes that since the applicant was not officially assigned to a major slot until 18 March 2001, he is not entitled to an effective date for promotion to major, with all back pay and allowances, prior to that date. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was promoted to major effective 18 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075297C070403
Paragraph 7-8f of the same regulation states the physical profiles for Reservist not on active duty may be accomplished by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) staff surgeons, medical corps commander of USAR hospitals, or the Surgeon, AR-PERSCOM without a physical profile board (PPBD). Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. It states that soldiers when found...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007418
The appellant requests her Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 1 June 2008 through 20 December 2009 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be corrected as follows: * remove all reference to being a referred report * change Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) to "Pass/20080828" * change Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) to "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" * remove comments in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) concerning her APFT failure * remove...
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001066112C070421
APPLICANT STATES : That she received a profile to take an alternate Army physical fitness test (APFT) and her command refused to give it to her. The applicant failed her first APFT in May 2000 and it appears she failed one or two other, non-record APFTs before a second record APFT failure in September 2000. She provides no evidence to show that she sought medical attention to discover if her thyroid condition or any medical condition could have been the reason for her APFT failures.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020097
The 88th RSC revoked the requested promotion order. The advisory official states: a. the applicant was not eligible for promotion consideration when the September 2008 promotion board convened and his promotion was in error; b. the flagging action for APFT failure rendered him ineligible for consideration; c. the 88th RSC promoted him into a position based on the results of the board, but when it was determined he was ineligible, his promotion orders were revoked and he was removed from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007159C071029
The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 9 September 2003, the date he was promoted to MAJ. Therefore, it would be equitable to show the applicant was promoted to MAJ with a DOR and effective date of 12 June 2003. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was promoted to Major with a date of rank and effective date of 12 June 2003.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013460
A USAHRC-STL memorandum, dated 13 April 2005, shows that the applicant was selected for promotion to 1LT by an Administrative Promotion Board that convened on 31 March 2005. USAHRC-STL Orders B-05-501580, dated 9 May 2005, show that the applicant was promoted to 1LT effective 18 April 2005, with a date of rank of 18 April 2005. Based on her date of rank of 18 April 2005 and completion of 5 years time in the lower grade, the applicant's promotion eligibility date (PED) for CPT is 17 April 2010.