| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy | Member |
2. The applicant, in effect, requests correction of his records to show that his staff sergeant date of rank (DOR) is 1 May 1997.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 the Army physical fitness test (APFT) score that was in his promotion packet, was incorrect. In July 1992, he was granted a permanent profile, which precludes him from taking the run event of the APFT. Instead of running he rides a bike. His bike score was mistakenly entered as a running score. If the bike score had been correctly converted he would have had 733 promotion points; the mistake caused his promotion points to be entered as 728. In March 1997, the promotion cutoff score for his military occupational specialty was 729, but he was not promoted because his records incorrectly reflected that he had 728 not 733 promotion points. He has tried over a long period of time, without success, to have this error corrected.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he has served continuously in the Regular Army since his enlistment on 19 January 1979. He is currently a staff sergeant, on active duty, holding military occupational specialty 88H3.
5. On 31 July 1992, the applicant received an approved permanent profile, which indicates that he will take the bicycle event instead of the run event for the APFT.
6. An APFT scorecard reflects that on 15 November 1995, the applicant received a score of 61 points for a run time of 17:49. It is noted that on previous APFT scorecards the run score block is left empty and the bike score information is entered in the Alternate Event area of the scorecard.
7. A 13 March 1996 Promotion Point Worksheet reflects the applicant received 61 points for the run event. The applicant's overall APFT score of 234 was converted to a promotion score of 70 points, and a total promotion score of 728 points.
8. The applicant was promoted to staff sergeant in MOS 88H3, effective 1 December 1997.
9. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). PERSCOM advised that their review of the applicant's record revealed that based on his permanent profile, he was required to take an alternate event for the 2-mile run. Additionally, the
applicant's APFT score for the alternate run event should have been an average of the other two APFT events. The applicant's APFT score should have been 259 instead of 234. This adjustment resulted in an increase of five promotion points. Based on the adjustment, the applicant's promotion score exceeded the 1 May 1997, cutoff score for military occupations specifically, 88H3. Therefore, the applicant's date of rank and effective date should be 1 May 1997. PERSCOM recommended that the applicant's request for date of rank and effective date adjustment from 1 December 1997 to 1 May 1997, be approved. The opinion was made available to the applicant for his response, however none has been received.
10. Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides that the Army physical fitness test (sit-ups, push-ups, and 2-mile run) must be done according to applicable regulations and field manuals. To qualify for promotion points, a soldier must attain a minimum score of 60 points on each event. Those soldiers with permanent physical profiles for the sit-up and/or push-ups events will be granted 60 points for each event waived and use the actual score for each event taken and must qualify on the 2-mile run or an approved alternate test according to Field Manual 21-20.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his APFT bike score was incorrectly entered as a run score which lowered his total promotion point score, which resulted in his not meeting the 1 May 97 promotion cutoff score to staff sergeant, is supported by his records and the PERSCOM advisory opinion. The Board has determined that the applicant is entitled to have his staff sergeant DOR and effective date corrected to 1 May 1997.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:
a. showing that the individual concerned was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a DOR and effective date of 1 May 1997;
b. paying to him any monies that may be due as a result of this correction; and
c. making his records available to a Standby Advisory Board for promotion consideration to the grade of sergeant first class.
BOARD VOTE:
___sk___ ___jtm___ ___teo__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_________Stanley Kelley_____________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001065239 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020606 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077434C070215
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by showing that his staff sergeant (SSG) date of rank (DOR) is 1 March 1997 not 1 May 1997, as determined by a previous Board. A member of the staff of the Board provided a copy of the applicant's Promotion Point Worksheet to the PERSCOM for review. After reviewing the evidence previously considered by the Board, and the new evidence the applicant has provided, the Board concludes that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. That official stated that the applicant could not fully document his failure to attend ANCOC, because he did not pass the physical training test; however, he gave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738C070209
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. An official of that command stated that the applicant was promoted to Sergeant First Class effective 27 February 1997 upon successful completion of ANCOC.
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 | CY2011 | 20110018970
He provided: * A copy of the promotion board proceedings, dated June 2010 * A copy of the amended promotion board proceedings, dated May 2011 * A DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) * A noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) * A DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard) * Two DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) * Two DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * Army Training Transcript * Printout from the Army Training Requirements and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007992
A proper LOD investigation should be initiated and processed for the 14 September 2006 incident following the precedent as set forth in two Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) cases. Even if the physical profile was a permanent 2 physical profile, the physical profile violates the physical profile code required for the signal systems support specialist position and he should have been referred to a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board. The DA Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001058
She further requests that her DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 16 June 2012 through 15 June 2013 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) be corrected as follows: * remove all references to it being a referred report * change the APFT entry in Part IVc to read "APFT: PASS DATE: 20130601" * remove the comment in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)) "failed to perform a record APFT during this rating period" 2. A DA Form 705, dated 16 November...
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 | 2001051513C070420
Counsel requests Board note that while the number of push-ups in the 3 June 2000 test is significantly under the 2 October 1999 APFT, the sit-ups and the run numbers are completely consistent between the two tests. 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: The Board concludes that, as a senior NCO, had he actually been able to complete 30 “good”...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014793
In January 2012, a promotion audit was conducted by the 18th MP Brigade in relation to the applicant's promotion after the IG had conducted an investigation and determined the applicant had been erroneously promoted to SGT. An audit of her promotion by the IG and later the 18th MP Brigade determined that she should have been removed from the promotion standing list because she did not have a valid APFT score. Accordingly, her unit revoked her erroneous promotion orders and granted her...