| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be reconsidered for promotion to sergeant first class (SFC/E-7).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the members of the 2001 Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection Board were prejudiced in their decision to deny him promotion because of an erroneous reenlistment eligibility code of "9X" in Item A11 of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB). He believes that this "9X" code was extremely damaging and, if nothing else, created a propensity to deny him a just review and promotion. He also states that his ERB was forwarded to the promotion board without his verification signature because he was in Drill Sergeant School and not available to sign it.
In support of his application, the applicant submitted the following documents: 1) definition of 9X code; 2) ERB, dated 16 May 2001, with 9X code, forwarded to FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board; 3) ERB, dated 18 April 2002, with "9X" code; 4) ERB, dated 22 April 2002, correcting "9X" code to "10;" 5) Letter, dated 18 April 2002, Subject: Reenlistment Code; 6) Letter, dated 22 April 2002, Subject: RE: 9X code; 7) Retain memorandum from reenlistment representative; and 8) a copy of orders for Drill Sergeant School. The applicant states that he has discussed this issue with his previous and current commanders, military personnel office representatives, and reenlistment counselors, and no reasonable response could explain how the "9X" code was entered on his ERB in error. He also states that he was told to pursue correction of this injustice through this Board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 September 1999, at Fort Campbell, the applicant reenlisted in the United States Army (USA) for an indefinite period of time. At the time of reenlistment, the applicant had 15 years, 8 months, and 6 days of active military service
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of staff sergeant/E-6 performing duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Drill Sergeant, at the 10th Infantry Regiment, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
On an unknown date, the applicant's promotion package was forwarded to the SFC/E-7 FY2001 promotion board. However, he was not selected for promotion to SFC/E-7. At the time of this board, the applicant was in the secondary promotion zone.
On 18 April 2002, the applicant reviewed his ERB and noticed that Item A11 reflected a "9X" code indicating the applicant was ineligible for reenlistment. On 22 April 2002, the applicant's ERB was corrected to reflect a "10" code in Item A11.
On 24 April 2002, the applicant applied to this Board for relief.
On 27 June 2002, the US Total Army Personnel Command, Promotions Branch, provided this office an advisory opinion. The Promotions Branch staff stated that the applicant's records and the official documentation maintained by their headquarters revealed that the FY 2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board considered the applicant; however, he was not selected. The staff further stated that the applicant's contention that the erroneous reenlistment code "9X" affected his chances for promotion is unfounded and does not constitute a material error that warrants reconsideration.
The applicant was selected for promotion to SFC on the FY2002 SFC Selection Board during his primary zone consideration.
Army Regulation 680-29 prescribes the data code structures used to report and record personnel data via the automated Personnel Information System (PERSINS). This regulation complements AR 680-5 by supplying the data elements and code structures used in the record formats prescribed by that regulation. "9X" is a data code that prohibits a soldier from being eligible for an immediate reenlistment.
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 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 Board noted the applicant's contention that the "9X" code created a material unfairness by being on his ERB when his record went before the FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board. However, the applicant provided no substantial corroborating evidence to support his contention. The Board also noted that AR 680-29 states that a soldier should review his package 3 to 6 months prior to the promotion board to ensure that there are no discrepancies in his file. Although the applicant was at Drill Sergeant School, he had ample time prior to leaving for school to prepare his package for the promotion board.
3. The Board noted that the applicant's last reenlistment was an indefinite reenlistment; therefore, his contention that the 9X code implied that he could not reenlist was irrelevant to the promotion board because he had no need to reenlist.
4. While on the surface it may appear that the "9X" code affected the applicant's chances for promotion to SFC when he went before the FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board, there is no way one can tell exactly why the applicant was not selected. Any number of things could have affected the reason why the board did not select the applicant for promotion to SFC from the secondary zone, and this Board is not privy to that information.
5. After a thorough review of the applicant's file, the Board determined that there was no material unfairness in the applicant's file when the FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board considered him, as a secondary zone SSG, for promotion to SFC. Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant's promotion from the primary zone with a 10 code in Item A11 on his ERB does not support the applicant's contention for material error or an injustice.
6. 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
__clg___ __rks___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073130 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021031 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.1100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007887
The applicant states: * he validated his promotion file on 17 December 2012 for the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) SFC promotion board * a "9X" Reenlistment Eligibility Code was placed on his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) on 18 December 2013 * the "9X" code is a reenlistment eligibility prohibition code; however, he was already serving on an indefinite reenlistment * he has never been flagged in his career; however, upon further review by the Brigade S-1, it was determined that an erroneous flag was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003683
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 April 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003683 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision in Docket Number AR20140009146 on 22 October 2014. While the evidence he provides does show he attended a promotion board and was on a promotion list, it still doesn't conclusively show he remained eligible on the date he contends he should have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071768C070403
It was noted that promotion reconsideration is approved only for non-selected officers whose records contained a material error when they were considered by a promotion selection board. The evidence of record shows the applicant's 2LT OERs were in his file when he was promoted to first lieutenant, captain, and major; however, there is no evidence that the 2LT OERs impacted negatively on those promotions. After a thorough review of the applicant's file, the Board concluded that there was no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001256C070208
The applicant states that because of an "erroneously filed" document in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), he was denied promotion consideration to Sergeant First Class (SFC) by the CY 1999 and CY 2000 SFC Selection Boards. The applicant provides: a. The Army acted properly in granting the applicant standby advisory board promotion reconsideration, in promoting him to SFC with a 1999 promotion date, and in scheduling him to attend ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004368C070208
Counsel further states that while the applicant received his overdue promotion to SSG/E-6 and was selected for and promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB), he was unable to be considered for promotion to MSG/E-8 by the Calendar Year 2004 (CY 2004) MSG/E-8 Promotion Selection Board (PSB) because he had not completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). In a 17 October 2002 application to this Board, the applicant requested immediate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013512
The DASEB Record of Proceedings, dated 18 August 2011, shows (in part): a. the NCOER covering the period the applicant was reprimanded does not make any reference to his misconduct; b. twenty-nine months had elapsed since the applicant received the GOMOR and: * there was no other derogatory information in his records * he had received three NCOERs with superior ratings and potential for promotion since the incident * he was selected as a Commandant's list graduate of Phase 2 of the Advanced...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000209
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 effective 1 August 2013 and all back pay due as a result. The applicant provides: * four promotion point worksheets (PPW) Unofficial Copy * an HRC memorandum, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 August 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active Army (AA) * a memorandum, subject: Request an Administrative Records Correction (ARC) for [Applicant], issued by Headquarters, 532nd...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711786
On 18 July 1995, his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension shows his date of entry on current enlistment was 8 November 1989 for a 6 year period.) In an opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notes that, based on the absence of the NCO-ER for ending period October 1991, the applicant’s records will be made available for consideration by the May 1998 Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under the 1993 criteria. The applicant was not granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004005C070206
Evidence of record shows that the SM was promoted to the rank of SSG in the RA on 1 June 1999 and served in that grade until he separated on 11 October 2001. The applicant contends that the SM was promised that he would not lose his SFC rank before enlisting in the RA. However, an AHRC grade determination which authorized his enlistment in the RA in the rank of SSG/E-6 also confirmed there were no SFC/E-7 vacancies in the applicant’s MOS that would allow his RA enlistment in that rank.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013890
The applicant's records also show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years on 28 December 1960 and was honorably discharged on 16 April 1963 in the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record (PQR)) shows he performed the following duties: a. The applicant's records also show a copy of his PQR was forwarded to the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and...