Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member | |
Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reinstated on the Army/Guard Reserve (AGR) 2001 staff sergeant (SSG) Permanent Promotion Selection List, sequence number 122, with his date of rank (DOR) backdated to correspond to that, which was received according to the order in which he would have been normally promoted.
APPLICANT STATES: That a flag was initiated and later removed. He received a bar to promotion that was also later removed and he immediately reenlisted.
In support of his application, he submits three memorandums and four DA Forms 268 (Report of Suspend Favorable Personnel Action [Flag]).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he is currently serving in the AGR Program with the 315th Quartermaster Detachment, Jacksonville, North Carolina, as an assistant water treatment supervisor, in military occupational specialty (MOS) 77W.
He was promoted to sergeant (SGT/E-5) effective 12 June 1993, with a date of rank (DOR) of 12 June 1993.
The applicant provided a copy of a DA Form 268, dated 24 October 2000, which shows that a flag was initiated effective 26 July 2001, for Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failure.
On 3 August 2001, the applicant was flagged for adverse action with an effective date of 26 July 2001.
On 8 September 2001, his command recommended that he be removed from the AGR 2001 SSG Permanent Promotion Selection List. His removal was based on his pattern of unsatisfactory conduct.
On 28 September 2001, the applicant's flag for APFT failure was removed.
On 8 January 2002, the applicant was barred from reenlistment and was removed from the AGR 2001 SSG Permanent Promotion Selection List. On 15 January 2002, the applicant appealed his bar to reenlistment.
On 14 March 2002, the applicant's command recommended removal of the applicant's bar to reenlist to the Commander, Headquarters, 171st, Corp Support Group (CSG). On 19 April 2002, the 171st CSG concurred with the command's decision and recommended removal of the applicant's bar to reenlistment.
On 6 May 2002, the applicant's bar was removed. On that same day, his flag for adverse action was removed. On 23 May 2002, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 6 years in the AGR.
A copy of an automated printout from the Full Time Support Management Directorate (FTSMD), Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) was provided to a staff member of the Board. This printout shows that the applicant had a sequence number of "122" on the AGR 2001 SSG Permanent Promotion Selection List, was flagged, barred from reenlistment, and was removed from the list.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the Acting Director, FTSMD. The opinion recommended that the applicant be reinstated to the 2001 U.S. Army Reserve AGR Promotion List, sequence number 122, with his DOR backdated to correspond to that which he would have been normally promoted. He was removed from the promotion list because of his bar to reenlist and Flag. His commander removed the bar to reenlistment effective 30 April 2002 and the Flag was removed effective 6 May 2002.
The applicant was provided a copy of the favorable opinion for possible comment prior to consideration of this case. The applicant responded within the timeframe allotted and concurred on 10 December 2002.
Army Regulation 140-111 governs the immediate reenlistment or extension of current members of the USAR assigned to the Selected Reserve, the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), and the Standby, and personnel serving on active duty in the AGR program. Paragraph 1-30 pertains to conditions warranting a bar to reenlistment for individuals whose continued active duty is not in the best interest of military service. Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification are, but not limited to, APFT failure, patterns of unsatisfactory conduct, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, substandard performance of duties, and substandard appearance (overweight).
Paragraph 1-34 of the same regulation pertains to review and disposition of imposed bars to reenlistment. It states that after placing an approved bar to reenlistment in a soldier's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), the company, detachment, or comparable commander of the unit to which the soldier is assigned, or attached for duty and administration, will continue to document evaluation of the soldier. Approved bars to reenlistment will be reviewed by the proper unit commander at least 6 months after the date of approval, and 30 days before the soldier's scheduled departure from the unit, or separation from the service. A recommendation to remove a bar to reenlistment may be submitted at any time by the soldier's unit commander if they feel that the soldier has proven worthy of retention in the USAR or AGR status. Each commander in the soldier's command will endorse recommendations for removal of a bar to reenlistment personally.
Army Regulation 140-158 prescribes policy and procedures pertaining to the classification, promotion, reduction, and grade restoration of enlisted soldiers
of the US Army Reserve (USAR). Paragraph 3-25 pertains to removal from the promotion recommended list. It states that on notification from a promotion authority, the authorities will remove a soldier's name from the recommended list. 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. Once the soldier is removed from a recommended list, the action is final unless the soldier is later exonerated.
Paragraph 3-27 pertains to reinstatement on the promotion recommended list. It states that a soldier removed from a list and later completely exonerated will be reinstated on the recommended list. To be completely exonerated, the action that caused the initial removal must have been erroneous or should not have been imposed so the soldier is free of any blame or accusation. 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 Regulation 140-111. Subsequent compliance with Army Regulation 600-9 and removal of the bar to reenlistment does not mean that the action that caused the removal was erroneous. Therefore, the soldier is not "completely exonerated" and reinstatement is not authorized. In no case should a reinstatement be delayed more than 30 days. If the soldier would have been promoted had they not been removed from the list, they will be promoted when the next vacancy occurs for that MOS and grade.
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. The applicant was flagged for APFT failure and it was later removed. He was later flagged for adverse action and was recommended for removal from the AGR 2001 SSG Permanent Promotion Selection List based on his pattern of unsatisfactory conduct.
2. The applicant was barred from reenlistment and was removed from the AGR 2001 SSG Permanent Promotion Selection List. He appealed his bar and it was later removed. His flag for adverse action was removed on 6 May 2002 and the applicant later reenlisted on 23 May 2002.
3. Notwithstanding the FTSMD advisory opinion, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement on the AGR 2001 Permanent Promotion Selection List. The regulation clearly prohibits it.
4. 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.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__ls___ __fj___ ___le_____ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2002079609 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 20030529 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
DISCHARGE REASON | |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 310 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078658C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was informed that the Standby Advisory Board did not approve his name to be added to the recommended list announced in memorandum, TAPC-MSL-E, dated 2 May 2002, Subject: Promotion List to Sergeant First Class. A soldier who is reclassified, or reassigned pending reclassification, in another MOS before the adjournment date of the board, has been considered in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069394C070402
If the grade requires the soldier to be a graduate of ANCOC, the soldier must be enrolled in the course within 12 months of the date of promotion and be a graduate of ANCOC within 24 months of the Phase I completion date. The applicant was scheduled for ANCOC, was on a temporary profile, and his recovery period of his profile overlapped with the course report date. a. by showing that he was granted an authorized delay for NCOES requirements of his conditional promotion and medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065963C070421
The applicant states that he completed Phase I of ANCOC on 23 April 1995; however, his unit administrator (UA) failed to schedule him for Phase II of ANCOC. He is now requesting that he be rescheduled to attend ANCOC and complete Phase I and II with restoration of his rank of SFC or be scheduled to attend only Phase II of ANCOC. The commander requested a waiver of one-year time requirement for completion of ANCOC following the applicant's conditional promotion with the provision that he be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069036C070402
This policy stated that soldiers, who have not yet attended ANCOC prior to their effective date of promotion to SFC, would be promoted "conditionally." The evidence of record shows that the applicant was administered an APFT on 11 April 2000, for preenrollment at ANCOC and failed the push-up event, which precluded him from attending ANCOC. The applicant's case was reviewed by the USAR AGR Enlisted Reduction Panel, which determined that the applicant should be reduced in rank for failing to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075439C070403
It states that a soldier who accepts a promotion with the condition that he or she must enroll in, and successfully complete, a specified NCOES course, and fails to meet those conditions, or is subsequently denied enrollment, or becomes an academic failure, or does not meet graduation requirements, or is declared a "No Show," will be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion. It states that under promotion procedures of this regulation, a soldier may be promoted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056808C070420
In January 1997, when the applicant was "conditionally selected" and ranked # 1 on the Order of Merit List (OML) for engineer duty, regulations required his "accompanying" waiver request be immediately forwarded for endorsement, recommendation, and DCSPER approval. Paragraph 3-3a(3) of the regulation states that the CAR has the responsibility to provide a recommendation for active duty through the appropriate selection process. The FTSMD advisory opinion further states that the accession...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212
The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026346
b. paragraph 543 states enlisted standby advisory boards will consider records of Soldiers on whom derogatory information has been properly substantiated, which may warrant removal from a selection list. c. paragraph 5-35 states a Soldier removed from a promotion selection list and later considered exonerated will be reinstated on the promotion selection list. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * Setting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070712C070402
In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, letter Subject: Submission of Voluntary Retirement, dated 1 March 2000; retirement orders, dated 28 August 2000; request to rescind retirement actions and for extension on AFS with chain of command endorsements, dated 6 September 2000; separation document (DD Form 214), dated 31 January 2001; Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, letter...
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...