| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his debt regarding his promotion be cancelled.
APPLICANT STATES: That he signed his declination to reenlist before the Army promoted him so they knew he did not intend to remain in the service. His separation orders were issued in August 1999 by the same organization that issued his demotion orders in October 1999. He was told by the transition point Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) that the demotion orders only mentioned a reduction in rank, not a recovery of back pay. He served honorably during the period in question and performed the duties and functions of a Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 May 1984. He was promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 3 June 1993. His three NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) for the periods November 1995 – July 1997 show he performed duties as a Special Forces Engineer Sergeant 18C40 (the “4” indicating the skill level of an E-7).
On 16 December 1998, the applicant signed a Declination of Continued Service Statement. He was counseled and acknowledged that he would be placed in a nonpromotable status and that he would be removed from a promotion standing list, if applicable.
Order 351-21, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) dated 17 December 1998 promoted the applicant to SFC, E-7 effective 1 January 1999.
Orders 237-0001, Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Carson dated 25 August 1999 reassigned the applicant to the U. S. Army transition point with a reporting date of 21 December 1999.
Order 300-2, PERSCOM dated 27 October 1999 revoked its Order 351-21.
The applicant’s NCOERs for the periods August 1998 – May 1999 and June – October 1999 show he performed duties as a Special Forces Engineer Sergeant 18C40.
Orders 333-0008, Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Carson dated 29 November 1999 amended its Orders 237-0001 to change the standard name line to show the applicant’s rank as SSG.
On 21 December 1999, the applicant was discharged upon completing his required active service in pay grade E-6. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, item 11 shows his primary specialty as 18C4P (the skill level should have reverted back to “3” upon the revocation of his E-7 promotion orders and item 12h erroneously reflects his SFC date of rank rather than his SSG date of rank of 3 June 1993.
By letter dated 7 April 2001, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) responded to the applicant’s inquiry concerning his indebtedness and informed him that his principal debt balance of $2,405.38 was valid. 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 which included pay and allowances through 31 December 1999 and was based on the rank of E-7.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. In pertinent part it states that erroneous promotions will be revoked. When a soldier has been erroneously promoted, a determination of de facto status may be made only to allow the soldier to keep any pay and allowances received at the higher grade when (1) promotions orders have been issued; (2) pay at the higher grade has been received; and (3) the soldier accepted the promotion in good faith.
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. 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.
2. The applicant signed his declination to reenlist on 16 December 1998. It is not reasonable to expect PERSCOM, the headquarters which issued his promotion orders, to have had this information when it published the orders on 17 December 1998.
3. It was reasonable to have expected the applicant, who acknowledged on 16 December 1998 that he would be placed in a nonpromotable status and that he would be removed from a promotion standing list, if applicable, to have informed his chain of command or his military personnel office or his managers at PERSCOM immediately upon receiving his promotion orders that he was not in a promotable status and the orders were no longer valid. It was reasonable to have expected him to decline to have had E-7 rank pinned on him. It was reasonable to have expected him to inform finance the first time he received E-7 pay that he was not entitled to E-7 pay and to expect that his promotion orders to be revoked in the future.
4. The applicant’s separation orders were issued in August 1999 by Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Carson. That headquarters did not issue his demotion orders in October 1999; PERSCOM did.
5. The applicant’s argument that he was told by the transition point NCO that the demotion orders only mentioned a reduction in rank, not a recovery of back pay, is not convincing. The Army is not liable for the erroneous actions of its officers, agents, or employees, even though committed in the performance of their duties. In any case the applicant, as noted above, knew that he was in a nonpromotable status when he received his promotion orders and should not have been surprised when his promotion orders were revoked with the erroneously paid differential between E-6 and E-7 pay recouped.
6. The Board notes that the applicant did perform the duties and functions of an SFC after he was promoted. However, his NCOERs also show that he performed those same duties prior to his promotion to SFC and so this is not a convincing argument.
7. The Board notes that there are two administrative errors on the applicant’s DD Form 214 relating to the promotion issue; however, he does not request correction of his DD Form 214 and the Board will not unilaterally make those corrections.
8. 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
__jl____ __gdp___ __cg____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066737 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020425 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.10 |
| 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 | 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 | 2002071512C070402
As a result of his request not to be further considered for attendance at the ANCOC and this DA action to remove his name from the promotion list, the applicant’s conditional promotion to SFC/E-7 was revoked and de-facto status was granted him for the period 1 November 1996 through 25 October 1999. He also indicated that because the applicant’s promotion was conditioned on completion of a required course, his academic failure of this course and his later request to no longer be considered...
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 | 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061444C070421
He then went to see SGM R. and requested that his school date be postponed until July 1999. Army Regulation 351-1 provides in pertinent part, that ANCOC training prepares Department of the Army selected SSG and SFC for leadership positions at platoon sergeant level. However, the request itself did not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of being prepared to attend ANCOC as scheduled, since any request may be denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011756C070206
The applicant states that his command did not adhere to Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) when they removed him from the promotion list by not documenting and justifying his reduction or giving him the proper counseling on the basis of his removal. He stated that his recommendation for removal from the promotion list for not meeting weight requirements was not within the time prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), which states a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104516C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7. Paragraph 4 of Commander, PERSCOM message date time group 071200 April 1992, Subject: Exception to Promotion Policy stated that promotable soldiers who had approved retirements prior to the convening date of those boards as a result of reaching their RCP would not have their retirements revoked or rescinded. Also, paragraph 4 of Commander, PERSCOM message date time group...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016621
He states he was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E7 on 30 June 1998 contingent upon enrollment in the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) within 12 months of the effective date of promotion and completion within 24 months. A Soldier who has been conditionally promoted must be enrolled and graduated from the NCOES course within the specified period of time. A Soldier must be enrolled in ANCOC within 12 months of the date of promotion and be a graduate of that course...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019352
Counsel requests: * a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) imposed on 3 April 2005 be removed from the applicant's personnel file * the applicant's removal from the sergeant first class (SFC) promotion list be withdrawn * the applicant be retroactively promoted to SFC effective 1 April 2005 with all back pay and allowances 2. He did not learn of his unit's actions revoking his promotion orders until 4 April 2005, the day after he...