| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests that he be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 22 March 2001, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he made the cut-off for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 in February 2001, and was promoted by his battalion commander on 31 January 2001, with an effective date of 1 February 2001, because of a deployment to Kuwait and training holiday. However, he was subsequently notified that that the promotion was revoked because he had not extended or reenlisted within the promotion month. He goes on to state that he reenlisted on 22 March 2001 and on 23 March 2001, he received a notification from the personnel office informing him of the requirement to extend or reenlist in order to meet the service remaining requirement for promotion. He then provided the personnel office with a copy of the reenlistment contract and orders were published on 27 March 2001, promoting him to the pay grade of E-6. They were subsequently revoked because he had not reenlisted in February and he was informed that he would have to reappear before a promotion board to acquire list standing again. He continues by stating that his promotion was revoked because officials did not fulfill their responsibility to notify him in writing in a timely manner that he had to meet the service remaining requirements within a specific timeframe or lose the promotion.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 8 January 1993 for a period of 3 years and training as a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) crewman. He successfully completed his training, remained on active duty through successive reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 July 1997.
5. On 1 February 2001, the applicant met the requirements for promotion to the pay grade of E-6. However, to accept the promotion, the applicant had to have 12 months of service remaining. His expiration of term of service (ETS) at that time was 14 December 2001. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 February 2001, however, those orders were revoked because he had been promoted prior to meeting the service remaining requirements.
6. The applicant reenlisted on 22 March 2001 in the pay grade of E-6 for a period of 3 years and orders were published on 27 March 2001, again promoting him to the pay grade of E-6. Those orders were subsequently revoked on 19 July 2001, because the applicant had not reenlisted in February 2001.
7. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotions Branch, which opined, in effect, that the applicant met the promotion cut-off score for 1 February 2001 and was required to be notified in writing that he must extend or reenlist to meet the service remaining requirement to accept the promotion within the promotion month. There was no such notice made to the applicant and he reenlisted on 22 March 2001. He was subsequently promoted, but the promotion was revoked because he had not taken the required action within the promotion month in accordance with the applicable regulation. The PERSCOM officials opined that since there was no evidence that he had been properly notified of the requirement to extend or reenlist, that he should be granted an exception to policy to accept the promotion effective the day he reenlisted (22 March 2001). The opinion was provided to the applicant and he concurred.
8. Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures for managing the enlisted promotion system. It provides, in pertinent part, that the promotion authority must notify soldiers who meet Headquarters Department of the Army cut-off scores, of the requirement to reenlist or extend to meet the service remaining requirements for the promotion. The requirement must be met during the month of promotion and the notification must be in writing.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the Board agrees with the opinion of the PERSCOM that the applicant should be reinstated to the promotion standing list and promoted to the pay grade of E-6 because of the Department’s failure to timely notify him of the requirement to extend or reenlist within the promotion month, the Board does not agree that he should be promoted effective 22 March 2001, the date he met the service remaining requirement for promotion.
2. Using the logic of the PERSCOM that had the applicant been properly and timely notified, the Board sees no reason why he could not have reenlisted sooner and been promoted on 1 February 2001, as he originally was.
3. Therefore, given that the applicant reenlisted before he was notified, it is apparent that it was his intent to do so all along. Accordingly, the Board finds that had he been properly and timely notified in accordance with established regulatory guidance, he would have reenlisted earlier and would have been properly promoted on 1 February 2001. Therefore, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to grant him an exception to policy to be promoted effective 1 February 2001, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances from that date.
4. 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 promoting the individual concerned to the pay grade of E-6, as an exception to policy, effective 1 February 2001, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances from that date.
BOARD VOTE:
__dh____ ___rvo __ __rjw____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.__
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001066111 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT PLUS |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000/PROM |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056730C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
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 | 2002075829C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that on 1 March 2001, the promotion date for all soldiers that had met the cut off scores were promoted; however, he didn’t received any orders nor was he on the promotion list. The letter from PERSCOM to the member of congress clearly states that as a result of his conversion he was not eligible to compete for promotion in the 68N PMOS.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076779C070215
During the obligated period of service, the soldier will not apply for voluntary nondisability retirement unless the soldier is (a) eligible for retirement by completion 30 years or more active Federal service and (b) already eligible through prior service for a higher grade at retirement and (c) over 58 years of age. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and...
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 | CY2003 | 2003086730C070212
The bar was reviewed after 6 months and was subsequently removed. Although the applicant's request to the NCOES Reinstatement Panel is not present for review by the Board. NOTE: In the event that the applicant has not been awarded his third and subsequent awards of the GCM as directed by Board proceedings AR2002071043 dated 24 October 2002, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), St. Louis will be requested to accomplish the action as directed by the Board in that case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087846C070212
The applicant requests the transfer of a DA Form 1059 dated 25 June 1999, promotion orders dated 27 September 2001 and Board proceedings dated 3 January 2003 be transferred to the Restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states, in effect, that he has previously won his appeal before the Board and requests that his records be corrected by transferring the requested documents to the Restricted fiche of his OMPF in order that his chances for selection to...
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 | CY2002 | 2002066582C070402
This office recommended that the applicant’s request to adjust his date of rank and effective date for promotion to SSG from 7 September 2000 to 1 June 1999, be denied. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: The applicant was conditionally promoted to the rank of SSG/pay grade E-6 with a date of rank and effective date...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079279C070215
If a VSI recipient becomes ineligible to continue to serve in the Ready Reserve, through no fault of his or her own, the soldier will be transferred to the Retired Reserve and continue to receive annual VSI payments for the remaining period authorized for VSI. The Army Regulation 135-180 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve-Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service), indicates, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for retired pay, an individual does not need to have a...