| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his effective date and date of rank of his promotion to pay grade E-5 be adjusted from 1 April 2002 to 1 July 1998.
APPLICANT STATES: That he should have been promoted in 1998. He would like to enter the warrant officer program. He has been in the Army for seven years and NCOs have been holding him back from attaining his goals.
The applicant submits promotion board proceeding documents showing that he was selected for promotion to sergeant E-5 in 1998, and that he was placed on a recommended list for promotion.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant served in the Reserve Components prior to his enlistment in the Army for three years in pay grade E-4 on 8 July 1997.
On 9 April 1998 he appeared before a promotion board and was recommended for promotion to sergeant E-5.
In a 17 June 1998 memorandum the applicant’s battalion commander was informed by the 24th Personnel Service Battalion that the applicant met or exceeded the announced cutoff score for promotion to sergeant for July 1998, but also indicated that the applicant had not completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), a requirement for promotion to sergeant. His commander was informed that the applicant would be promoted upon completion of the course, if otherwise qualified.
A 14 June 1999 promotion point update shows that the applicant was flagged on 9 February 1999.
The applicant completed PLDC on 22 May 2002.
A 9 September 2002 computer printout shows that he was promoted to sergeant on 1 April 2002.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). That command stated that while the applicant did meet the 1 July 1998 cutoff score for promotion in his specialty he had not completed PLDC, a requirement for promotion; additionally, he was on the overweight program from 9 February 1999 until 14 August 2000, requiring his removal from the recommended promotion list. PERSCOM indicated that he again appeared before a promotion board, [recommended for promotion], and then conditionally promoted on 1 April 2002. PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied.
On 30 September 2002 the applicant was furnished a copy of the advisory opinion for his information and possible rebuttal. He failed to respond.
Army Regulation 600-8-19, then in effect, prescribes the policy for promotion of enlisted personnel, and states that promotable soldiers in the rank of specialist/corporal are required to be graduates of PLDC prior to promotion to sergeant. That regulation also states that a soldier in the Army weight control program will be immediately removed from a promotion recommended list.
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:
1. The applicant had not completed PLDC in 1998 and could not be promoted. Apparently from early on in 1999 he was flagged for being overweight, causing his removal from the promotion list. He was later reinstated upon being recommended for promotion, and subsequently promoted. Notwithstanding the applicant’s contention, there has been no wrong done to him. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
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 that 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
__MKP__ __JLP___ __MMB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074099 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030114 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2003 | 2003088494C070403
He stated that after reviewing the applicant's December 2000 body fat content worksheet and his height and weight data dating back to February 1999, evaluation reports, and related medical documentation, he believed that his weight gain of approximately 18 pounds was directly related to his hernia, the repair surgery, and his physical inability to conduct a rigorous fitness regime from December 2000 through October 2001. Therefore, the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he...
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 | CY2002 | 2002078668C070215
A fifth measurement was taken by the unit weight control NCO on 28 February 2001, which had resulted in a determination that the applicant met the body fat standard. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was denied attendance at the ANCOC based on his being under a FLAG action, as a result of his being in an overweight status on 4 January 2001, the scheduled date of his ANCOC class. Also, on 28 February 2001, when the unit weight control NCO determined he met the weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069664C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Military Personnel Message Number 99-164 issued 1 June 1999 provided that, effective 1 June 1999, promotable soldiers in the rank of SGT who met a cutoff score will be conditionally promoted to SSG the date they met the cutoff score, provided otherwise eligible. Promotable soldiers in the rank of SGT that were currently on the monthly SGT/SSG promotion selection name list...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012408
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The sergeant major informed the applicant that he would not be allowed to attend ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of AR 600-9 and would subsequently be demoted to the grade of E-6 based upon his conditional promotion. The applicant did not provide evidence to show, and his records do not indicate that his medical condition required processing through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080679C070215
In February 2002, the applicant submitted a request asking that he be reinstated on the promotion list and that he be scheduled to attend the ANCOC. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the effective date and date of rank of his promotion to SFC/E-7 should be restored to 8 January 2000, because the revocation of this promotion was based on an unverified and flawed body fat measurement that resulted in his unjustly being denied enrollment in the ANCOC, and it finds this claim has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002192
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, effective 1 May 2003. The regulation in effect on May 2003 provided, in pertinent part, conditional promotions for Soldiers who have met a cutoff score and are otherwise qualified, but have not completed PLDC, are authorized to be promoted (when approved by the promotion authority) when they are reflected on the OML for PLDC attendance, when they are operationally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087548C070212
The applicant was not considered and selected for promotion to CW4 until the 2002 board convened. Documentation in his records shows that he completed a physical examination effective 3 January 2001 and his FLAG was favorably removed effective 12 January 2001; therefore, his promotion effective and date of rank for CW4 should be the approval date of the 2002 RCSB. The Board concludes that the 2002 CW4 promotion board considered and selected the individual and he should have been promoted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072622C070403
Because a record APFT taken within 60 days of attendance was required for him to attend the ANCOC, he took the APFT on 3 June 1999, and he failed the 2 mile run portion of the test, which resulted in his failure of the record APFT. The applicant concluded his reinstatement request to PERSCOM by commenting that the Baltimore Recruiting Command, his unit, failed him and the Army by failing to abide by Army regulations, policies, and procedures. The Board also finds no evidence to show that...