| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her date of rank as a sergeant (E-5) be changed from 1 December 2001 to 1 November 2001.
APPLICANT STATES: That her chain of command failed to process her conditional promotion in a timely manner.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She was serving on active duty as a specialist (E-4) when her name appeared on the 1 November 2001 promotion list. She was not fully qualified for promotion because she had not completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) however, she could be conditionally promoted.
On 7 November 2001 the applicant was counseled about the ramifications of conditional promotion and the fact that, should she not become educationally qualified within 12 months she would be administratively reduced and would have to pay back the difference in pay. Furthermore, it was noted that timely completion of PLDC was unlikely because she would be engaged in MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) re-training. Therefore, a waiver request from her command would be required and her command might not make the request or the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) might not approve such a request. An email, included in the counseling statement, notes that it was too late to promote the applicant before 1 December 2001.
During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM, Deputy Chief, Promotions Branch. It noted that the applicant could have been promoted on 1 November 2001 but that the command had made no such request. Denial of her request was recommended.
A 17 July 2001 letter from the Army Review Boards Agency provided the advisory to the applicant for rebuttal. She failed to respond.
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. There is no available evidence to substantiate the applicant's contention that the one-month delay in her conditional promotion was caused by the command's failure to take timely action. Furthermore, considering that she would have been administratively reduced to pay grade E-4 if she had not completed PLDC within 12 months, the delay may have worked to her advantage.
2. 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.
3. 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
____KAK__ ___MHM __TLP_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073132 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030128 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067506C070402
The promotion recommended list for the promotion of enlisted personnel for the Tampa Recruiting Battalion, dated 24 August 2001, confirm that the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGT/E-5 and that she had attained 638 points. The personnel administrator concludes that it should be the MPD’s responsibility to correct this problem, but instead of meeting this responsibility, they require the applicant to apply to this Board for correction of military records. The Chief, Promotions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071359C070402
In an undated advisory opinion, the Chief, Promotions Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command stated that the applicant’s packet did not contain the promotion authority’s approval of the promotion as required by Army Regulation 601-210, and that promotion requests submitted 6 months after the date the soldier completes the required training must be forwarded to the ACASP proponent for determination.14. The applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be promoted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075047C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Finally, the applicant has offered no explanation either for the delay in raising her alleged prior completion of PLDC or for her apparent failure to mention it at the time of her original separation from active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082313C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The evidence of record...
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 | 2002071526C070402
In a 21 December 2001 memorandum to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) the MEDDAC commander at Fort Stewart recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective on 26 July 2001 as an exception to policy. Both the applicant’s company commander and MEDDAC commander recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective on 26 July 2001, the date that she completed the required proficiency training. The applicant completed the required training.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069572C070402
The packet submitted by the applicant’s battalion commander also includes confirmation of the applicant’s medical problems between April 2000 and August 2001, and a medical document that verifies that she was placed on a temporary physical profile on 8 August 2001, which prevented her attendance at her scheduled September 2001 ANCOC class. The evidence of record and the applicant’s battalion commander confirm that she was on a valid temporary physical profile that prohibited her attendance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054604C070420
The effective date of promotion and date of rank shall be the same as if the officer had been selected to the grade concerned by the promotion board for Active Duty List officers. In response to a query from a member of this agency, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) provided another advisory opinion concerning the applicant’s case, stating on the one hand that the applicant came on active duty in the correct grade and received the maximum amount of constructive credit allowed, but...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085155C070212
The applicant was removed from the promotion list by the appropriate authority and the PERSCOM opined that his request should be denied. Paragraph 1-19 provides, in pertinent part, that an officer's promotion is automatically delayed (this is, the officer is not promoted in spite of the publication of promotion orders) when the officer is under investigation that may result in disciplinary action of any kind being taken against him or her, is under, or should be under, suspension of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074285C070403
The applicant requests that her records be corrected to show that she completed 20 years of qualifying Army Reserve service for retired pay at age 60. The applicant’s military records show that she was born on 16 April 1942 and was appointed a first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps effective 25 June 1982 with immediate assignment to an Army Reserve unit. The AR-PERSCOM recommends granting the applicant retired pay.