| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his sergeant major rank be reinstated.
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes the revocation of his promotion orders was an injustice. He provides correspondence pertaining to the revocation of his promotion orders which he believes will show that the revocation of his promotion orders was an injustice.
In support of his application he submits a letter from his commander in which the commander states that it is his opinion that the revocation of the applicant’s promotion order was unwarranted and resulted from administrative misunderstanding and misapplication of Army regulations. The applicant’s commander gives his rationale for his statement and then attests to the outstanding duty performance of the applicant.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 28 February 1995, orders were issued promoting the applicant, a reservist assigned to a troop program unit, to the rank of sergeant major. The applicant’s effective date of promotion and date of rank were established as 1 March 1995.
On 1 April 1996, the applicant began the nonresident Sergeants Major Course. On 14 November 1996, the applicant was disenrolled from the course due to his failure to maintain satisfactory academic standards.
On 2 February 1998, in response to an inquiry from the applicant’s command, the Army Reserve Command (USARC) stated that prior to the 17 January 1998 effective date of Change 4 to Army Regulation (AR) 140-158, the only guidance provided by the Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) on reservists promoted to sergeant major who failed the Sergeant Major Course was to revoke their promotion orders. However, the USARC stated that the DCSPER’s guidance was insufficient for a number of reasons, and informed the applicant’s command that it was their decision whether to revoke the applicant’s promotion order or not.
The applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant’s promotion order not be revoked, citing the applicant’s exemplary duty performance and his value to the command as the basis for his recommendation.
The Staff Supervisory Administrator (SSA), the highest ranking civilian in a reserve command, signing on behalf of his brigade commander, recommended that the applicant’s promotion orders be revoked. The SSA stated that the applicant fully understood his requirement to complete the SGM Academy to maintain his promotion to sergeant major. The SSA opined that if the applicant’s promotion order was left intact, it would establish “the wrong precedence to all enlisted personnel who were promoted prior to the new change to AR 140-158.” The SSA directed that the applicant’s service as a sergeant major be classified as defacto so that he would retain the pay he received at that grade.
On 6 April 1998 the applicant’s promotion order to sergeant major was revoked.
Army Regulation 140-158, effective 1 October 1994, paragraph 1-27.2, states that effective 1 October 1993 reservists being promoted to sergeant major must be a graduate of the SGM Academy. Paragraph 1.8 states that all promotion orders will contain the statement “Promotion is not valid and will not be effective if the soldier is not in a promotable status on the effective date of the promotion.”
Change 4 to this regulation, dated 17 December 1997, added a chapter which deals with the relationship between promotions and the noncommissioned officer education system. Paragraph 8-18 of this regulation provides the authority to conditionally promote a reservist to sergeant major, contingent on that reservist’s completion of the SGM Academy. This paragraph specifies that if a reservist is conditionally promoted to SGM and fails to complete the SGM Academy within a prescribed period of time, the reservist is to be reduced to pay grade E-8.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The regulation published five months prior to the applicant’s promotion required completion of the SGM Academy for promotion to sergeant major. However, the effective date of that requirement was a year and five months prior to the applicant’s promotion.
2. Since there were no provisions to conditionally promote a reservist to sergeant major at the time of the applicant’s promotion, and since the applicant had not completed the SGM Academy, he never should have been promoted.
3. The USARC’s confusion on whether the applicant’s promotion orders should be revoked appears to have resulted from the fact that there were no provisions in the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s promotion to revoke orders on reservists who were given conditional promotions. However, the reason there were no provisions to revoke orders on conditional promotions was that conditional promotions were not authorized at the time of the applicant’s promotion.
4. The statements attesting to the applicant’s exemplary performance of duty and worth to his command are commendable but are not germane to this case. The Department of the Army has decreed that all reserve sergeant majors complete the SGM Academy. There are no exceptions contained in the regulation.
5. 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
__jal____ ____tlp __ ____jns _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063602 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| 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. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081504C070215
The applicant states that he was promoted to SGM/E-9 with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 7 April 1997. This authority also stated that promotion orders would be revoked for those soldiers who failed to enroll in or complete SMC. It stated that the OTJAG had rendered a legal opinion that the Department of the Army (DA) Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER), now the G-1, had no authority to authorize conditional promotions of Army Reserve enlisted soldiers to SGM during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022398
A memorandum from the commandant of the USASMA, dated 28 April 2008, shows a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) was prepared showing the applicant failed to achieve course standards and was dismissed from Phase I, NR-SMC effective 28 April 2008. It states that operational deferments will only be granted for unit deployments. There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he requested a course deferment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018371
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was conditionally promoted to SGM effective 1 November 1995, and served in that grade for 3 years, 11 months, and 7 days. He is also entitled to correction to his records to show he was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade SGM, E-9, effective 22 May 2002, and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade SGM, E-9, effective 26 September 2006, and entitled to appropriate pay and allowances associated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011549
She has served in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and on active duty for 34 years. As she was age 55 and she lacked the required NCO Education System (NCOES) course for promotion consideration to SGM which was completion of the USASMC; therefore, she had been ineligible for consideration by the promotion board, and her name was removed from the promotion list. The evidence of record shows the applicant was 55 years of age and was not an SMC graduate when she was erroneously considered for and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026207
On 24 December 2002, Headquarters, 78th Division, Edison, NJ, published Orders 02-358-00003 ordering the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR, effective 30 November 2002, after having achieved maximum authorized years of service as a MSG/E-8 (32 years). The applicant was promoted to CSM on 1 December 1997 but his orders were revoked and he received new orders on 3 March 1998 promoting him to SGM/E-9 contingent upon completion of Sergeant Major's Course with 2 years. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008580
The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 16 June 1980 and his date of birth (DOB) is recorded as 18 June 1948. However, the message that announced that board specifically stated that the eligibility criteria for appointment as TPU CSM included, if the Soldier was a MSG with a PEBD of 1 March 1972 and later (the applicant's PEBD was 16 June 1974) and with a date of rank of 6 June 2001 and earlier (the applicant's date of rank was 16 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014338
The applicant requests, in effect, his grade of rank of sergeant major (SGM)/pay grade E-9 be restored and that his retired pay records be corrected to show he was placed on the retired list as an SGM (the highest rank he held while on active duty) instead of master sergeant (MSG)/pay grade E-8. The applicant states, in effect, that he held the rank of SGM for almost four years prior to his retirement but his retired rank is listed as MSG. Evidence of record confirms the applicant held the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003662C070205
However, the WAARNG had discharge orders transferring him to the IRR. Yet, their State had discharge orders transferring him to the IRR. The evidence shows the applicant had been given two deferments for attendance of Phase II of the USASMA.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003904
In a memorandum, dated 11 September 2006, Subject: Promotion Policies for Reserve Component (RC) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) in Excess of 12 Months and Sanctuary Soldiers, USARC provided clarification to the 26 June 2006 memorandum. In a memorandum, dated 30 April 2007, Subject: Clarification and Change to Promotion Policies for Army Reserve Troop Program (TPU) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational support (ADOS) and Sanctuary Soldiers, USARC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009058
The applicant states the reduction order is in error because she should not have been reduced to SPC in accordance with Army Regulation 140-158 (Army Reserve Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), paragraph 7-12d (Failure to meet conditional promotion Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) requirements). Evidence shows her correct SSN is xxx-xx-3xxx. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be...