| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger Able | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her promotion effective date and date of rank (DOR) to staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) be adjusted to 1 November 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was originally promoted to SSG/E-6, effective 1 November 1999, and a second time on 1 November 2000. She claims that her original promotion was determined to be erroneous by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) based on the fact that she was in a nonpromotable status. The reason for this status was that she was being processed by a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)/Medical Retention Board (MMRB). She claims that she was never informed by local personnel officials that her MMRB processing placed her in a nonpromotable status, the erroneous promotion was not her fault, and that she accepted the promotion in good faith. In support of her application, she submits the following documents: Personnel Action Request (DA Form 4187), requesting an exception to policy for promotion; a 23 October 1999 promotion order to SSG; a SSG promotion revocation order, dated 1 May 2001; a promotion order to SSG, dated 1 May 2001; a request for de facto status; and her Enlisted Record Brief (DA Form 2-1).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant is currently serving as a SSG/E-6 on active duty, in MOS 88N (Transportation Management Coordinator), at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
On 7 May 1997, she was recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 31R (Multichannel Transmissions System Operator-Maintainer) and placed on the promotion standing list in that MOS with a total of 635 promotion points. On
29 March 1999, she was reevaluated and her promotion point total increased to 694 points.
On 23 September 1999, the applicant appeared before an MMRB which evaluated her ability to perform the duties in MOS 31R in a worldwide environment given the limitations imposed by her permanent physical profile. The MMRB determined that her physical profile hindered her ability to perform her duties in MOS 31R and recommended that she be reclassified into a less physically demanding MOS.
Subsequent to being evaluated by the MMRB, on 1 November 1999, the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG in MOS 31R. On 13 December 1999, the findings and recommendations of the MMRB were approved and the applicant’s reclassification into another MOS was directed. On 18 September 2000, PERSCOM approved her reclassification into MOS 88N.
On 7 December 2000, the applicant requested an exception to policy to retain her rank of SSG with an effective date of 1 May 2000. She based this request on the fact that she had not been informed that she was in a nonpromotable status, the excessive delay in the processing her request for reclassification, and given she met the announced Department of the Army (DA) promotion cut-off score in her new MOS prior to her reclassification being approved.
On 24 April 2001, PERSCOM approved the applicant’s retention of her rank with an adjusted effective date and DOR of 1 November 2000. In addition, PERSCOM officials advised the applicant that she could apply for de facto status under the provisions of paragraph 1-17, Army Regulation 600-8-19.
Orders 121-7, dated 1 May 2001, issued by Headquarters, 18th Personnel Services Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, revoked the applicant’s original SSG promotion order, Orders Number 296-405, which had authorized her promotion on 1 November 1999.
Orders 121-8, dated 1 May 2001, issued by Headquarters, 18th Personnel Services Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, promoted the applicant to SSG in MOS 88N, effective 1 November 2000.
On 9 May 2001, the applicant requested de facto status for the period from
1 November 1999, the date of her original promotion to SSG, to 1 November 2000, the adjusted date of her SSG promotion. On 7 June 2001, PERSCOM approved this request.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. Paragraph 1-10 states, in pertinent part, that soldiers undergoing the MMRB process are placed in a nonpromotable status. Paragraph 1-17 provides the criteria for granting de facto determinations for soldiers who are erroneously promoted in order to allow them to retain any pay and allowances received at the higher grade when the soldier accepted the promotion in good faith, held the higher grade, and performed duties in the higher grade.
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 Board notes and concurs with the applicant’s contention that the erroneous promotion was through no fault of her own and that she was never informed she was in a nonpromotable status while undergoing the MMRB process. However, while the Board concurs with her claim that her erroneous promotion was through no fault of her own, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG, in MOS 31R, subsequent to the MMRB concluding that she could not perform duties in that MOS based on her physical profile limitations. Further, the promotion was accomplished while she was undergoing the MMRB process and in a nonpromotable status.
3. Therefore, even if the applicant’s contentions are true, it is clear she was in a nonpromotable status on the date she was promoted and that it had already been determined by competent authority, the MMRB, that she could not perform the duties of the MOS in which she had been erroneously promoted. It is also clear that once the erroneous promotion was discovered, appropriate measures to correct the administrative error were taken by revoking the erroneous promotion in accordance with applicable regulations.
4. Further, the record shows that this administrative error was resolved in favor of the applicant by granting her an adjusted promotion to SSG in her new MOS and de facto status to ensure she suffered no monetary loss as a result of the erroneous promotion. Thus, the Board finds that the original promotion error was administratively resolved with no resultant injustice to the applicant.
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
__LLS___ ___RA___ __TLP___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059881 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/01/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003082299C070212
At the time the promotion was revoked, ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request for de facto status be granted in accordance with regulatory guidance. It states that when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the soldier to retain pay and allowances received in that status. In view of the facts of this case, and based on the de facto status determination and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066737C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Order 300-2, PERSCOM dated 27 October 1999 revoked its Order 351-21. DFAS noted that the applicant’s demotion was not posted to his pay account until after he separated from the Army, that the debt was also due to the collection of Parachute Pay from 1 July – 31 October 1999, and that the remainder of the debt was due to receipt of the regular end-of-month direct deposit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071010C070402
The recommendation contained in the ARPERSCOM advisory opinion is that the applicant be granted de facto status for the periods 1 December 1999 through 28 December 2001. The evidence of record confirms that although the applicant technically failed to comply with the two year promotion service remaining requirement within 30 days of the effective date of his promotion, this was more the result of administrative processing errors rather than a reflection of the applicant’s intent not to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067430C070402
Orders 204-06, dated 23 July 2001, promoted the applicant to the pay grade E-6, with an effective date and date of rank of 19 July 2001, in MOS 97B. On 20 September 2001, a legal review determined that, in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19, the applicant met the requirements for granting de facto status concerning his erroneous promotion to pay grade E-6. The applicant was erroneously promoted to pay grade E-6 on 19 July 2001, and his records should be corrected to show his correct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015305
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 May 1997. The applicant's records in iPERMS show his rank as PFC with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1998. A signed DA Form 4187 with a date of 16 December 1999 requested the applicant's pay status be changed from SPC/E-4 to PFC/E-3.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071280C070402
On 30 June 1995, the effective date of the MOS conversion, the applicant was reclassified into MOS 31R20P7. The applicant met all these requirements at the time of the MOS conversion and should have been converted to MOS 31S with the ASI of Y2 at that time. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate at this time to correct the effective date of the applicant’s reclassification into MOS 31S to 30 June 1995.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060665C070421
The applicant's medical records were reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board on 19 October 1999. On the date that promotion orders were published promoting him to the rank of Staff Sergeant, he was in a promotable status. On the effective date of his promotion, 1 October 1999, the applicant's records had not yet been reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board and a decision about his retainability in service had not yet been made, and therefore, the promotion orders should not have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012856
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The first such promotion board was the CY2003 IRR/IMA/EAD board. In conclusion, the G1 advisory opinion stated the applicant's 1999 promotion was erroneous and was properly revoked.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090992C070212
On 10 October 2000, he was promoted to major by AR-PERSCOM with a date of rank of 1 September 1992 (the date of his appointment as a Reserve captain), based on the selection for promotion by the 1993 RCSB. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers) specifies that mandatory selection boards will be convened each year to consider Reserve and ARNG officers for promotion to captain through lieutenant colonel. The applicant is entitled to correction to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022994
At the time, policy guidance allowed promotion off the recommended lists for Soldiers who were granted a waiver, but only if the Soldier was currently deployed. He was promoted to SFC on 14 July 2010; however, since he did not complete his required NCOES until 18 December 2011 his promotion was revoked. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 July 2010; however, he did not complete the required NCOES course within the prescribed period of time.