| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 2002 be back dated to make her eligible for promotion to the pay grade of E-8.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that her promotion progress was hindered until the Board, in its previous decision (AR1999027844), granted her request to backdate her DOR to the pay grade of E-6. She goes on to state that the injustice of having negative, adverse comments on her evaluation reports has caused her to be placed behind her peers for promotion consideration. Inasmuch as the Board has recognized this injustice, her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 should be adjusted as her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 was.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 March 2000, the Board considered the applicant's request for adjustment of her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 and promotion to the pay grade of E-7 (AR1999027844).
The Board determined that based on her successful, albeit delayed appeal of three noncommissioned officer evaluation reports dated from 1990 to 1994, she would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6 in October 1990 instead of October 1999. The Board directed that her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be adjusted to 1 October 1990, with entitlement to back pay and allowances to 24 June 1997, the date she began to appeal the actions to correct the evaluation reports.
In regards to her promotion to the pay grade of E-7, the Board determined that consideration for promotion to the pay grade of by a standby board would disadvantage the applicant because she would not have been evaluated as an E-6 for a sufficient amount of time and she would not meet eligibility requirements for promotion to the next higher grade.
The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 2002.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. At the time the Board previously considered the applicant's request to have her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 back-dated, the Board determined that since she was selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 the first time she was considered after the contested evaluation reports were removed, that in all likelihood, she would have been promoted had the reports not been in her records when she was previously considered and not selected.
2. The Board also gave her entitlement to back pay and allowances; however, the Board recognized that the applicant was also a contributing factor (delay in appeal) in the ability to correct the problem completely and limited that entitlement to the date she began her appeal of the evaluation reports.
3. While the intent of the Board was to make her as whole as possible, given the circumstances of the case, the Board determined that she should not be considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 as a result of the Board's decision because it would place her at a disadvantage.
4. The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 approximately 26 months after the Board directed the correction of her DOR. Accordingly, it appears that the previous actions by the Board to get the applicant as close to back on track as possible, considering the circumstances, was appropriate.
5. At the time the board made the decision in her previous case to grant relief in the form of an adjustment of her DOR, it was not intended to be a perpetual cycle of DOR adjustments that would apply to each grade in which she was promoted. The adjustment was intended to be a one-time fix that was consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is desirable to always make a person completely whole when an error or injustice occurs, unfortunately it is not always possible and the Board must make its judgment of the best course of action to accomplish what it believes is fair and equitable.
6. The Board considered the applicant's arguments in her previous and current case and made its judgment of the best course of action to take in regards to her promotion progress and entitlements. Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to further back-date her DOR for promotion to the pay of E-7.
7. 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
__fe ____ ___mt___ __le_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078762 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 315 | 131.0500/DOR |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006343
The applicant requests, in effect: * adjustment of his mandatory removal date (MRD), from 31 August 2016 to 30 November 2019 * adjustment of his date of rank (DOR), from 17 December 2000 to 31 March 2004 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. he was reappointed and promoted in accordance with the provisions of the Wxxxxx lawsuit (Settlement Agreement, Lxxxx J. Wxxxxx vs. Fxxxxxx J. Hxxxxx, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army, U.S. District Court for the Western District of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002576
The applicant requests, in effect: a. adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 to 8 August 2002 with pay and allowances from 8 August 2002 to 31 March 2004; b. adjustment of his DOR to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 to 8 December 2004 with pay and allowances from 8 December 2004 to 31 May 2006; c. removal of the DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period November 2002 through October 2003 from his official military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000361
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 June 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090000361 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Officers in her specialty who were selected by the promotion board were assigned through that colonel slating process and promoted with dates of rank between 14 May 2007 and 3 December 2007. The advisory opinion from the Director, Office of the Chief, Army Reserve, Senior Leader Development Office states that had the applicant been selected for promotion on her original...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061235C070421
The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC and to the pay grade of E-7. A staff member of the Board also reviewed similar cases that have been reviewed by the Board and finds that in all such cases, the Board supported the PERSCOM decision to promote individuals who had been reinstated after they completed the ANCOC; however, it was always with a retroactive DOR (to the date they were originally promoted), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances (minus the de facto...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009910
The applicant requests promotion reconsideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) based on the criteria of the Calendar Years 2008 and 2009 (CY 08 and CY 09) Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 Promotion Boards. On 12 February 2009, the ASRB directed the report be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); however, this was not done before the CY 09 Promotion Board convened and reviewed her record. Therefore, notwithstanding the ASRB's determination that promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001447
The applicant provides copies of: a. a letter from the Board with Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 11 August 2011, notifying her of denial; b. an email communication between the applicant and another Army officer, dated 20 May and 11 June 2010; c. an email communication between the Commander, Special Troops Battalion (STB) and the Brigade Combat Team (BCT) trial counsel, subject: Commander's Inquiry, dated 26 May 2010; d. a Memorandum for Record, dated 19 September 2010, written by an Army...
She provided a letter from a new commander in which he proposes retroactive promotions based on his review of the records and opinion that her weight problem was outside her control and that her duty performance warranted such promotions. Had this been known, her previous commander would have requested promotion from the wing commander. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 4EC 0 8 1998 IN THE MATTER OF: - 558-76-8013 -.. DOCKET NUMBER: 88-028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; or, that the AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, which replaced t w o voided Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), be altered to inform promotion boards of the reason for the removal of the reports. The applicant explains her promotion to the grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009502
A DA Form 5074-1-R (Record of Award of Entry Grade (Health Services Officers)), dated 24 July 2009, shows she qualified for appointment to the MSC in the rank of CPT with award of no constructive credit for the rank of CPT. The advisory official stated the applicant's DOR adjustment was the result of her reappointment from the MSC to the AMSC on 28 April 2010. She contends, in effect, that she should receive credit for prior commissioned service including that in the rank of 1LT while...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100824C070212
The applicant requests that her date of rank (DOR) and effective date for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 be changed back to her original promotion date of 1 September 2000. The applicant states, in effect, that she was conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 September 2000 and attended the Advanced Noncommissoned Officer Course (ANCOC) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, on 8 April 2002. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation...