| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:
14. The applicant effectively served in the rank of major effective on her promotion to that rank on 31 August 1998. There was no error in her promotion to major on that date.
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES:
5. At the time of the Board’s 4 June 2002 decision in this case, it was the intent of the Board to make the applicant’s record as administratively correct as it should properly have been at the time. The Board notes, however, that the decision to reinstate her on active duty on the ADL in the grade of major with an effective date and date of rank of 1 December 1998 in no way is meant to financially penalize the applicant because it changed her effective date and date of rank for promotion to major. Her pay is not affected. She accepted her promotion in good faith, worked as a major from 31 August 1998, and as an exception to policy is deemed to have served as a major from 31 August 1998 in a de facto status, allowing her to keep any pay and allowances received as a major from that date.
6. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the Board’s recommendation appearing in the proceedings, dated 4 June 2002, to show that the individual concerned served as a major in a de facto status as an exception to policy from 31 August 1998 until 1 December 1998, the effective date and date of rank of her promotion to major as reflected in the 4 June 2002 Board decision.
BOARD VOTE:
__TSK __ __JTM __ _ HBO___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___ Ted S. Kanamine______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002066681 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020711 |
| 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. | 100.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001059881C070421
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. Subsequent to being evaluated by the MMRB, on 1 November 1999, the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG in MOS 31R. 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...
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 | CY2003 | 2003083371C070212
The applicant was informed that, since the records showed that he had declined promotion to major, his promotion to major had been adjusted to 1 October 1985 and his name was removed from the 1989 and 1990 promotion board results. There is no evidence of record, or evidence provided by the applicant or counsel, that a promotion memorandum was ever issued for LTC. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant is not entitled to any of these claims and this Board specifically...
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 | 03093420C070212
The applicant provides a copy of the order promoting him to sergeant major effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 1997, a copy of an order assigning him to the Retired Reserve effective 7 June 2002 in the rank of master sergeant, and a copy of a memorandum to the applicant from the Director, Enlisted Personnel Management at St. Louis informing him that conditional promotions to sergeant major during the period 1 October 1983 through 16 June 1998 were not authorized. His rank on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009117C070208
Total Army Personnel Center (TAPC) Orders Number 14-040, dated 14 January 1998, included the applicant's name on the list of active duty officers promoted with an effective date of promotion and date of rank of 1 February 1998. The effective date of promotion and date of rank will be the same as if the officer had been selected to the same grade by a promotion board for RASL officers. Since by regulation this factor will not disqualify an officer from being promoted it is appropriate to...
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 | 2002081508C070215
The applicant requests, in effect, that his rank and pay grade of sergeant major/E-9 (SGM/E-9) be reinstated. In addition, the Board finds that it would also be appropriate to amend Orders Number 320-5, dated 16 November 1999, issued by Headquarters, 85 th Division, Arlington Heights, Illinois, to show that the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9 vice MSG/E-8 as is currently indicated in these orders. As a result of the restoration of the...