| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Sherri V. Ward | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his effective date of rank to master sergeant (MSG) (E-8) be changed from 30 November 2001 to 1 November 1999.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was precluded from receiving his promotion to MSG as a result of an inordinate delay in the processing of his security clearance. He states that he should not be penalized for the delay caused by a backlog in that processing. He indicates that he has been serving as a first sergeant (1SG) during the time he was waiting for his clearance and promotion.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 21 April 1982 and has had continuous service through the current time. He was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) (E-7) in 1993.
The applicant was selected for promotion to MSG on 8 April 1999 with a sequence number of 201.
On 21 December 1999, the applicant's squadron commander requested that the applicant be frocked to the rank of first sergeant (1SG), effective 14 January 2000. The request indicates that the applicant would be serving as the 1SG for D Troop, 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment. The regimental commander recommended approval with an effective date of 27 January 2000.
There is no documentation on the outcome of this request, however, the applicant's noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) for 2000 and 2001 show his rank as SFC (1SG). The USA Sergeants Major Academy service school academic evaluation report, dated June 2001, shows his grade as 1SG as do two subsequent recommendations for awards.
On 31 July 2000, the regimental commander submitted a request for an immediate reinstatement of the applicant's security clearance. This commander states, "I have reviewed all of the documentation that led to, as well as those subsequent to, the revocation of his clearance and fully believe there is no current basis for denying him access."
The record shows that the applicant was promoted to MSG on 3 December 2001 with an effective date of 30 November 2001.
The applicant's file contains no indication of when the applicant received any security clearance except the 30 November 2001 local agency check (LCD). Nor is there any documentation of a revoking of or restriction of his security clearance except for the 21 July 2000 memorandum.
In the development of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief, Promotions Branch. That opinion states that the applicant's date of promotion was correct since the applicant did not have the required security clearance until the 30 November 2001. Denial of the request was recommended.
A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 6 August 2002. There is no indication of a response or rebuttal from him.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions) contains the policies and procedures pertaining to enlisted promotions. Paragraph 1-16 provides the policy and security clearance prerequisites for promotion. Paragraph 1-16a states that promotion to MSG and SGM (sergeant major) requires a favorable National Agency Check, a Local Agency Check, and Credit Check (NACLC) or a security clearance of secret or higher. Paragraph 1-16b states that for promotion to SPC (specialist) through SFC require the clearance required by the promotion MOS or an interim clearance at the same level.
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. The applicant's record contains an indication that he had previously been granted a clearance and that the clearance was revoked.
2. Therefore, the evidence shows that the applicant was not fully eligible for promotion to MSG until he was granted the security clearance in November 2001.
3. The record contains no evidence to suggest the applicant pursued obtaining a security clearance until after he had missed his original promotion date despite knowing that a security clearance was a prerequisite to being promoted.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this Board must apply the presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. There is nothing in available records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant to overcome this presumption.
5. 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002074359 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021119 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.04 |
| 2. | 131.05 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2005 | 20050005979C070206
On 30 September 2005, the unit personnel security officer informed the Board analyst that the applicant's security clearance had been revoked (for an unknown reason) in October 1986. The evidence of record shows the applicant was selected for promotion by FY2005 MSG Promotion Selection Board and promotions were made through his sequence number on 1 December 2004. The email from the applicant's personnel security officer indicates his clearance was completed on 14 March 2005 and he was...
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 | CY2004 | 20040008275C070208
However, he was not promoted at this time because he failed to meet the security clearance prerequisite for promotion. This promotion official confirms that promotions were made through the applicant’s sequence number on 1 May 2003, but the applicant was not promoted because he did not meet the security requirement. The record shows he did not meet the security clearance promotion criteria on 1 May 2003, when he first became eligible for promotion to SGM, and there is no indication...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006006C070205
William F. Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, there was no record of his having a secret security clearance, a requirement for promotion to MSG. Since JPAS and CCF verified that the applicant had a secret security clearance in 2002, and since CCF verified that the applicant’s secret security clearance was not suspended after 2002, it would be equitable to correct the applicant’s records to show...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017822C070206
She was granted a secret security clearance on 6 October 1997. There is evidence of record to show the applicant initiated a request for reinstatement of her security clearance in November 2003. While the Board is sympathetic with the problem the applicant is having in getting her request for reinstatement of her clearance acted upon, it cannot arbitrarily show that she had a favorable security screening effective a specific date.
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 | CY2001 | 2001062968C070421
On 7 May 1998 she was again informed that she was considered but not selected for promotion, and that she had to be discharged in accordance with appropriate regulations. A First Lieutenant on the RASL who has failed selection for promotion to Captain for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to Captain, will be removed from active status not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the final approval authority...