| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his date of rank for promotion to master sergeant be changed from 25 April 2001 to 1 January 2001.
3. The applicant states that upon receipt of a memorandum on or about 2 May 2000 that he was in a non-promotable status because he did not have a security clearance, he contacted an NCO at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), who informed him that he could be granted an interim clearance through his operations group S-2 and be promoted without delay. He contacted an NCO in the group S-2, and was informed that there was nothing he could do because he had no record of a background check on file, and who stated that was unusual because soldiers with 10 years or more of active service should have at least a favorable background check on file.
4. The applicant states that he knew that he did not have a secret clearance, because his job positions did not require one, but was unaware that he did not have at least a favorable background check on file. The regulation states that promotion from specialist through sergeant first class requires the clearance required by the promotion MOS (military occupational specialty) or an interim clearance at the same level. He was promoted to sergeant first class on 1 March 1996 with no delay. He applied for a security clearance in order to be promoted to master sergeant prior to his projected promotion date, but his promotion sequence number came up before he was granted a clearance. He finally found a copy of his entrance national agency check (ENTNAC). He was granted an interim clearance and promoted on 25 April 2001. The security investigation was completed on 2 July 2001 and he was granted a secret security clearance.
He was never informed that his ENTNAC was lost. His security investigation was not completed in a timely manner. He feels that he should receive a retroactive date of rank with back pay.
5. A 19 March 1984 DIS (Defense Investigative Service) report of NAC/ENTNAC shows that an ENTNAC was conducted and that FBI agencies were checked with favorable results.
6. The applicant’s military records show that on 2 May 2000 PERSCOM notified the applicant, then a sergeant first class, that promotion to master sergeant required a favorable National Agency Check (NAC) or a security clearance of secret or higher; and that his security status reflected “none” [he had neither]. He was requested to provide the appropriate documentation to effect his timely promotion.
7. A Defense Security Service (DSS) EPSQ (Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire) shows that the DSS received the applicant’s investigation packet on 17 July 2000.
8. A 27 April 2001 memorandum for record from the S-2, JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Center) and Fort Polk shows that the applicant was granted an interim secret clearance based on his 1984 ENTNAC. Another memorandum of that same date from the same official indicates that a local records check was favorable, that an interim secret clearance was granted on 25 April 2001, and that a request for a secret clearance was submitted on 15 July 2000.
9. The applicant was promoted to master sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 25 April 2001.
10. In a 17 April 2002 e-mail to the applicant, the JRTC Operations Group S-2 stated that the applicant’s investigation packet was received by the DSS on 17 July 2000, but that agency was extremely slow with investigations. He also faulted a S-2 NCO and the G-3 Intelligence and Security Division for failing to properly screen his [investigation] packet, causing it to be returned for correction. He stated that no copy of his local records check was maintained in the S-2 office. He indicated that his S-2 should have requested a clearance based on his favorable 1984 ENTNAC. That official stated that there was no reason that he was not granted an interim clearance pending completion of the DSS investigation.
11. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing enlisted promotions. Paragraph 1-16 states that promotion to master sergeant and sergeant major requires a favorable National Agency Check, Local Agency Check, and Credit Check, or a security clearance of secret or higher.
12. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM Promotion Branch. That office indicated that the promotions were made through the applicant’s sequence number on 1 January 2001; however, he was not promoted because he did not meet the security requirements. He was promoted on 25 July 2001, the day his interim clearance was granted. That office recommended that the applicant’s request be denied in that adjusting his promotion date would afford him an unfair advantage not given to other soldiers.
13. In his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated that the facts are clear that he was not at fault for the delay in receiving his clearance; that he had no control over the performance of individuals and agencies involved in the process. He strongly disagreed with the advisory opinion.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence indicates that the applicant did take action to obtain a clearance well prior to his projected promotion date of 1 January 2001. The evidence also suggests that the applicant was ill-served in the clearance process; and that he could have been granted an interim secret clearance in advance of his promotion date.
2. Consequently, and notwithstanding the PERSCOM advisory opinion, it would be entirely proper to grant the applicant an exception to policy and grant his request for a retroactive promotion to master sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 2001, with all due pay and allowances.
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 by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to master sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 2001, with all due pay and allowances in that grade from 1 January 2001.
BOARD VOTE:
__LLS __ __BJE __ __WDP__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Luther L. Santiful_____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002072269 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021217 |
| 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. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006794C070208
Peter B. Fisher | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant’s promotion was not authorized on 1 May 2003 because he did not meet the security requirement necessary to be promoted on that date. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was granted an interim “Secret” security clearance on 30 April 2003; that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015123
AHRC stated that the applicant was requesting an adjustment to his MSG DOR from 27 December 2005 to 1 February 2002. Promotions were made through his sequence number on 1 February 2002; however, the applicant did not meet the security clearance requirement for promotion to MSG. AHRC stated that on 18 January 2006, the applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 27 December 2005, the day his security clearance was granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064810C070421
The opinion points out that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY2000 MSG Selection Board and was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 22 August 2001, the date his secret clearance was granted. 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: Records show the applicant’s security clearance was completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000901C070205
The applicant provided a memorandum for record, dated 6 October 2005; an excerpt from Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers); a coversheet from the United States Army Reserve (USAR), dated 28 August 2001; a USAR Personnel Command promotion notification letter, dated 18 April 2003; six pages from the Total Army Personnel Database (TAPDB) Transaction History; a copy of an undated data screen synopsis; a Projected Promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088051C070403
The current regulation requires that an officer take and pass the APFT prior to being promoted; however, the regulation in effect at the time the applicant was eligible for promotion is silent in this regard. Over three years later his clearance was granted and he was finally promoted to first lieutenant. Further, it would appear to this Board that if the applicant was granted a clearance in 2000, then he would also have been eligible and would have been granted a clearance prior to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079544C070215
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show his date of rank as a first lieutenant as 21 November 1999 instead of 26 June 2001. He was discharged from the Army Reserve on 1 August 1990. Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy and procedures for the promotion of commissioned officers of the Army Reserve, and states in pertinent part, that an officer who has been recommended for promotion to the next higher grade must have undergone a favorable security screening.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069200C070402
There is no evidence available to the Board which shows the date the applicant's security clearance was revoked. The opinion also states that the applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 5 April 2001, the day his secret clearance was granted. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066540C070402
The local personnel management officer, in a memorandum to the applicant’s battalion commander advised that after a careful review of all of the facts in the case and close coordination with Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA), Senior Enlisted Promotions Branch, the applicant's request for change of the effective date of his promotion would be returned without action. The applicant was promoted to master sergeant with a date of rank of 26 April 2001, the date his secret clearance was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003983C070206
Robert Duecaster | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Documents submitted with the applicant’s application indicate he submitted a request to update his security clearance in 2001 in preparation for promotion to Master Sergeant, as well as a rebuttal to reinstate his clearance. In December 2003 a second request was submitted to CCF to grant the applicant an interim clearance.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008198
The official stated the regulations clearly state that a favorable security screening is required prior to promotion. National Guard Regulation 600-101 (Warrant Officer - Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) states in Table 7-1 that the minimum time-in-grade for promotion from WO1 to CW2 is 2 years. An NGB official states they were unable to confirm any information in regards to the applicant's security clearance or any interim security clearance from the time frame...