| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his date of rank to pay grade E-6 be corrected from 19 July 2001 to 1 September 2001; and that he be granted
de facto status for the period 19 July 2001 through 31 August 2001, in order to keep pay and allowances he received as a result of the erroneous promotion.
3. The applicant states that he was erroneously promoted to pay grade E-6 on 19 July 2001, and should have been promoted on 1 September 2001. In support of his request he submits copies of his promotion and revocation orders, a copy of a review of de facto status, and a copy of his reenlistment document.
4. While the Board is aware that changing an individual’s date of rank and granting de facto status is generally a purely administrative matter, information received from the Defense Finance Service Center (DFAS) indicates that such action has not been accomplished for this applicant (possibly due to the applicant’s change in assignment and career management office), and as such the Board deemed it appropriate to act on this request.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he reclassified from Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 73D to 97B effective 19 July 2001.
6. 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.
7. On 29 August 2001, the 23 July 2001 promotion orders were revoked and new promotion orders were published giving the applicant an effective date and date of rank of 1 September 2001.
8. The applicant’s promotion score exceeded the announced promotion cutoff score for the month of September 2001, which was the second month after his reclassification, and therefore entitled him to be promoted with a 1 September 2001 date of rank and effective date.
9. 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.
10. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotions Branch, which states that the applicant was erroneously promoted in his new MOS. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 3, paragraph 3-29, soldiers with an approved voluntary reclassification will compete for promotion in their current primary MOS through the month of reclassification, and that soldiers who reclassify will
compete against the promotion cutoff score and may be promoted in the newly awarded MOS effective the first day of the second month following reclassification. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and did not respond.
11. Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 1-17, states that when a soldier has been erroneously promoted and has received pay at the higher grade, 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.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was erroneously promoted to pay grade E-6 on 19 July 2001, and his records should be corrected to show his correct promotion date of
1 September 2001.
2. The erroneous promotion was no fault of the applicant, therefore de facto status should be granted to allow him to keep all pay and allowances from
19 July 2001 through 31 August 2001.
3. 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:
a. by correcting the applicant’s date of rank for promotion to pay grade
E-6 from 19 July 2001 to 1 September 2001; and
b. by granting the applicant de facto status allowing him to keep all pay and allowances received from 19 July 2001 through 31 August 2001.
BOARD VOTE:
__MDM _ __LE ___ __KYF __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Mark D. Manning____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002067430 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020523 |
| 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 | 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 | CY1997 | 199711778C070209
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 November 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-11778 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Orders promoting the applicant to pay grade E-8 in specialty 92A effective 1 July 1994 were issued by department of the Army on 24 May 1994 but revoked on 18 July 1994. A 20 September 1994 record of telephone conversion between...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199711778
He continued to hold specialty 76Y as his primary specialty (PMOS) until early 1993 when he was converted to specialty 92Y as part of an Army wide conversion project. Orders promoting the applicant to pay grade E-8 in specialty 92A effective 1 July 1994 were issued by department of the Army on 24 May 1994 but revoked on 18 July 1994. A 20 September 1994 record of telephone conversion between an official at the Total Army Personnel Command and the applicant’s servicing personnel officer,...
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 | CY1996 | 9605048C070209
On 20 June 1991 the applicant was promoted to Sergeant pay grade E-5 and awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 73C20 (finance NCO). That official stated, in effect, that Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 4-6, required a soldier to be qualified in the duty MOS (DMOS) and be in the position authorized a Sergeant E-5 in order to be promoted. An official from the OCAR, in an informal opinion, stated that the revocation of the order promoting the applicant was indeed correct - that...
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 | CY2006 | 20060012356
A DA Form 4187, dated 30 August 2004, shows the applicant requested voluntary reduction to the pay grade of E-7 for the purpose of reclassification to MOS 97B in accordance with Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 7-12b(3)(b). Evidence of record shows that the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 1 June 1998 in MOS 11B. On 30 August 2004, he requested a voluntary reduction to the pay grade of E-7 for the purpose of reclassification to MOS 97B.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020484
This document shows that de facto status was approved for his promotion to SFC/E-7 in the MOS of 95B for the period 1 August 2009 through 12 July 2010. On 10 May 2011, the applicant was given a GOMOR which shows an investigation determined that he: a. knowingly accepted award of the PMOS 31B and promotion to SFC in July 2009 for which he was not qualified; b. made a false official statement on his June 2009 security clearance application by stating that he had not been subject to any...
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 | CY2010 | 20100026588
c. a memorandum from the Deputy IG of the 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, SC, dated 7 September 2010, wherein the author states that after conducting a thorough inquiry and reviewing all the facts, and in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), paragraph 5-27a(11-b), the applicant should have been removed from the PPRL when he received the Article 15 on 6 November 2007. It states in: a. Paragraph 5-2b, field-grade commanders of any unit...