| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his date of rank (DOR) of 3 July 2002 be adjusted to 16 August 2001.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was erroneously placed on the Order of Merit List (OML) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 77F, petroleum supply specialist, instead of 51K, plumber, due to no fault of his own. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his promotion orders, two e-mail responses, and five memorandums.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that he is currently serving in the Army Reserve with the 955th Engineer Company, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
The applicant provided a copy of an e-mail response dated 1 May 2001, from the 89th Regional Support Command (RSC) that indicated that he was listed as a 77F on the latest OML. However, he should be listed as a 51K and his Promotion Eligibility Worksheet showed his current MOS and recommended MOS to be the 51 series.
On 26 August 2001, the applicant's records appeared before the 648th Area Support Group (ASG) Enlisted Promotion Board. He was recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6 in MOS 77F30 and was placed on the OML.
The applicant provided a copy of another e-mail response, dated 2 May 2002, that stated that the 89th RSC had an order awarding the applicant the MOS of 51K, effective 11 July 1998.
On 6 May 2002, the 329th Quartermaster Battalion Commander prepared a memorandum, Subject: Request for Promotion. This memorandum was in response to the applicant's promotion to SSG on the OML. The commander stated that the applicant's promotion packet was forwarded to the 648th ASG on 16 August 2001 for the August promotion board. The packet requested that the applicant be placed on the OML as a 51K20, which converts to MOS 51H30, construction engineering supervisor, at the E-6/SSG level. He was erroneously placed on the OML dated 12 September 2001 as a 77F. The Battalion S-1 submitted documentation to the 648th ASG to have the error on the OML corrected by the 89th RSC. The vacancy for MOS 51H was announced by the unit and listed by the 89th RSC; however, the correction to the OML had not been corrected, and therefore, the applicant had not been promoted to the rank of SSG.
On 25 June 2002, the supervisory staff administrator submitted a request to the 89th RSC requesting that the applicant's recommended MOS (RMOS) of 77F be changed to 51H.
He was promoted to SSG/E-6 effective 3 July 2002, with a DOR of 3 July 2002, in MOS 51H.
On 26 August 2002, the Assistant Inspector General (IG), 89th RSC, prepared a reply in regards to the applicant's telephonic request for assistance. A thorough inquiry was conducted into his request for assistance. The applicant was placed on the OML as a 77F instead of 51K. The G-1 was notified of the error on 16 May 2002. The applicant's promotion orders could not be published as the Regional Level Application Software (RLAS) reflected that he was flagged for Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). His flag was removed on 3 July 2002, and promotion orders were published the same day. The G-1 recommended that the applicant apply to this Board for relief.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the Military Personnel Officer, Headquarters, 89th RSC. The opinion stated that the applicant was requesting that his DOR for promotion be adjusted to 16 August 2001. Through no fault of his own, he was placed on the OML as a 77F30. His MOS was 51K, which converted to 51H at the pay grade of E-6/SSG. The command requested that his unit submit a letter through his chain of command explaining the erroneous boarding. The command received e-mail responses on 1 and 2 May 2002, and again in memorandum format on 6 May 2002. His MOS was reported to the promotion board erroneously for promotion and promotion orders could not be published because the RLAS reflected a flagging action for APFT failure. The IG findings concluded that applicant's unit removed the flag on 3 July 2002 and promotion orders were published. The command at that time had no supporting documentation to validate adjusting his DOR. Therefore, his DOR of 3 July 2002 remains unchanged.
The applicant was provided a copy of this opinion for possible comment prior to consideration of this case but no response was received.
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 appeared before the enlisted promotion board on 26 August 2001, was recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 77F, and was placed on the OML.
2. He was erroneously placed on the OML dated 12 September 2001 as a 77F and documentation was submitted to have the error corrected by the 89th RSC.
3. The IG was notified of the error and a thorough inquiry was conducted into his request for assistance. Promotion orders were unable to be published because the RLAS reflected that the applicant was flagged for APFT. His flag was removed on 3 July 2002 and orders were published with an effective date and DOR of 3 July 2002.
4. His contentions are noted. However, the error was corrected and it was discovered that he was flagged for APFT failure on the RLAS, which prevented his promotion at an earlier date. Therefore, this Board finds that after review of the evidence provided that there is no basis to adjust his DOR from 3 July 2002 to 16 August 2001.
5. 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.
6. 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
___ao___ __kh____ ___tr___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070448 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030605 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | USAR |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 21 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020097
The 88th RSC revoked the requested promotion order. The advisory official states: a. the applicant was not eligible for promotion consideration when the September 2008 promotion board convened and his promotion was in error; b. the flagging action for APFT failure rendered him ineligible for consideration; c. the 88th RSC promoted him into a position based on the results of the board, but when it was determined he was ineligible, his promotion orders were revoked and he was removed from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073498C070403
The transition packet received by all soldiers stated that if a valid assignment was not available that each soldier qualified for separation pay would receive separation pay for a five-year period and then retired pay from the USAR program at age 60. The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from the 652 nd ASG unit administrator, dated 22 May 2002, which stated that the position currently held by the applicant was not an authorized position for the 652 nd ASG. He also received a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074791C070403
He was denied enrollment and was returned to his unit to appear before a promotion removal board; however, he was again required to take an APFT and passed it again. For reasons not explained in the available records, the applicant was removed from the promotion standing list and was subsequently transferred to Honduras, where he had to appear before a promotion board in order to re-acquire promotion list standing. Inasmuch as the Board has been unable to establish that the message he has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079609C070215
He was removed from the promotion list because of his bar to reenlist and Flag. The promotion authority will direct the removal from the recommended list of the name of the soldier who has been barred from reenlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 140-111. For example, a soldier receives a bar to reenlistment for failure to comply with Army Regulation 600-9 and is removed from the recommended list under paragraph 3-25, barred from reenlistment under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073499C070403
The transition packet received by all soldiers stated that if a valid assignment was not available that each soldier qualified for separation pay would receive separation pay for a five-year period and then retired pay from the USAR program at age 60. The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from the 652 nd ASG unit administrator, dated 22 May 2002, which stated that the position currently held by the applicant was not an authorized position for the 652 nd ASG. He also received a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026588
c. a memorandum from the Deputy IG of the 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, SC, dated 7 September 2010, wherein the author states that after conducting a thorough inquiry and reviewing all the facts, and in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), paragraph 5-27a(11-b), the applicant should have been removed from the PPRL when he received the Article 15 on 6 November 2007. It states in: a. Paragraph 5-2b, field-grade commanders of any unit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073553C070403
The transition packet received by all soldiers stated that if a valid assignment was not available that each soldier qualified for separation pay would receive separation pay for a five year period and then retired pay from the USAR program at age 60. The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from the 652 nd ASG unit administrator, dated 22 May 2002, which stated that the position currently held by the applicant was not an authorized position for the 652 nd ASG. She also received a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010710
The applicant provides copies of the following orders published by Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support (TS)), Houston, Texas, Orders 07-150-00004, dated 30 May 2007; Orders 07-215-00004, dated 3 August 2007; Orders 07-215-00005, dated 3 August 2007; Orders 07-215-00006, dated 3 August 2007; and Orders 07-218-00001, dated 6 August 2007. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was promoted to MSG (E-8) effective and with a DOR of 1 May 2008. While the evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021246
On 3 January 2012 in a response to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated he was supplying documentation to show he was assigned to an LTC position on 28 January 1998 and he had a current physical on file at that time. The evidence of record shows the 2003 SSB selected the applicant for promotion to LTC under the 1997 LTC APL board criteria. The Chief, Promotions, HRC, opined that if documentation was provided to verify the applicant was assigned to an LTC position prior to 29 May 1998...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007821
The 343rd Combat Support Hospital, Brooklyn, New York, Report of Promotion Board Proceedings for Promotion to SGT/E-5 and SSG/E-6, dated 5 October 1995. c. Department of the Army, Headquarters, 77th RSC, Fort Totten, New York, Promotion Orders Number 72-2, to SGT/E5, dated 5 March 1996. d. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 11 June 1996, request for correction of DOR, together with the commander's endorsement, dated 18 July 1996, and the 77th RSC response, dated 13 September 1996. There...