| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Antonio Uribe | Member |
2. The applicant requests that all documents related to the revocation of his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that on 1 June 2001, the Department of the Army erroneously revoked his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 based on his failure to attend the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). However, he had completed the ANCOC on 9 December 1999 and when he provided the documentation to substantiate his completion of the course, his rank was restored. However, all of the associated documents related to the incident are still contained in his OMPF and serve as a negative detractor for future selection boards.
4. The applicant’s military records show that on 24 July 1998, the applicant's name was released as a selectee for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and attendance at the ANCOC. He was conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 April 1999.
5. On 9 December 1999, the applicant graduated from ANCOC class 4-99 at Fort Benning, Georgia. He was issued an academic evaluation report and a diploma, both of which are contained in his OMPF.
6. On 5 June 2001, the Chief of the Enlisted Promotions Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified the applicant that he had been removed from the promotion selection list due to his failure to attend scheduled ANCOC. Orders were published which revoked the promotion and granted him de facto status through 29 May 2001. Those orders are contained in his OMPF on the service computation fiche. On 6 July 2001, the same office notified the applicant that he had been reinstated to the pay grade of E-7.
7. A review of his OMPF shows that the removal and reinstatement documents are contained in the restricted fiche of his OMPF.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The revocation of the applicant's promotion was clearly an administrative error on the part of the Department. The applicant had in fact met the conditions of his conditional promotion 18 months prior to the revocation of his promotion.
2. Accordingly, the Board finds that the presence of the revocation of his promotion orders on his service computation fiche and the documents related to his removal and restatement to the promotion list that are on his restricted fiche, serve no useful purpose other than to detract from his otherwise excellent record of service.
3. The applicant's records contain the documents necessary to support his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and the Board finds that justice will be served by removing the documents that erroneously revoked his promotion to the pay grade of E-7.
4. 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 removing all documents from the OMPF pertaining to the individual concerned that relate to a revocation of his promotion to the pay grade of E-7.
BOARD VOTE:
___sac__ ___rks___ __au____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Samuel A. Crumpler____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002077532 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 328 | 134.0000/REM DER INFO |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058226C070421
He further states that had his command followed the proper procedures, he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-7 conditionally and that once it was determined that his overweight condition was the result of a medical condition, he would have been allowed to retain his promotion until he could attend the ANCOC. Inasmuch as the Army has a reason for maintaining records of circumstances such as the applicant’s and he has failed to show they are in error, there is no basis to grant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002762C070208
A 15 July 2002 memorandum, the document which the applicant is asking to be removed from his file, states that the applicant’s name was administratively removed from the promotion list based on his “release from ANCOC due to [his] failure to meet the standards of AR [Army Regulation] 600-9.” Army Regulation 600-9 established the Army’s Weight Control Program. Although the applicant has requested that the 15 July 2002 memorandum notifying him of his removal from ANCOC be expunged from his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087846C070212
The applicant requests the transfer of a DA Form 1059 dated 25 June 1999, promotion orders dated 27 September 2001 and Board proceedings dated 3 January 2003 be transferred to the Restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states, in effect, that he has previously won his appeal before the Board and requests that his records be corrected by transferring the requested documents to the Restricted fiche of his OMPF in order that his chances for selection to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014653C070206
The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 in 2001 and before he could attend the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) he injured his shoulder and could not attend the course. Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, provides, in pertinent part, that Soldiers who fail to successfully complete, fail to remain eligible to be scheduled or attend, who are denied enrollment in, or who do not attend their scheduled NCOES class...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100689C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the notification of his removal from the promotion selection list dated 26 June 2001 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). This memorandum was filed in the applicant's P- fiche and not in the R-fiche, as it should have been. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: transferring the Memorandum from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, which notified...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071512C070402
As a result of his request not to be further considered for attendance at the ANCOC and this DA action to remove his name from the promotion list, the applicant’s conditional promotion to SFC/E-7 was revoked and de-facto status was granted him for the period 1 November 1996 through 25 October 1999. He also indicated that because the applicant’s promotion was conditioned on completion of a required course, his academic failure of this course and his later request to no longer be considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072707C070403
PERSCOM officials indicate that the applicant was conditionally promoted on 14 October 1999, and that this promotion was later revoked based on his failure to attend a scheduled ANCOC class due to a FLAG action based on his failure of a record APFT. The Army’s ANCOC general attendance policy outlined by the PERSCOM NCOES branch states, in pertinent part, that is currently no deadline in determining when the soldier must attend ANCOC. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083475C070212
The applicant was scheduled to attend ANCOC class number 502 PH1 with a reporting date of 11 February 2001. Both of these members of the applicant’s NCO support chain recommend approval of the applicant’s request for reinstatement of his promotion and to the ANCOC. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was granted a compassionate deferment from attending his 11 February 2001 ANCOC class; by reinstating his...
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 | 2002067519C070402
On 20 April 2001, this doctor’s statement was forwarded to the applicant’s PERSCOM career advisor by the installation schools NCO, Fort Carson, in order for action to be taken to defer the applicant’s ANCOC class date. Once these documents were provided to PERSCOM, he heard nothing further on the applicant’s deferment request and only found out about this in September 2001, when the applicant informed him that his promotion had been revoked and requested a statement. It recommends that the...