| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests that her records be corrected by reinstating her original date of rank of 1 September 2001 to staff sergeant, and by removing from her records, a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) dated
6 January 2002, reduction orders dated 25 January 2002 and amendment orders dated 6 February 2002.
3. The applicant states that she was denied enrollment to the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) for being overweight and that she was wrongly reduced for failure to complete the course. However, the PERSCOM Reinstatement Panel reinstated her to the list but the imposed reduction was not lifted until she finished the course.
4. The applicant’s military records show that the applicant was conditionally promoted to staff sergeant on 1 September 2001, contingent on successful completion of BNCOC.
5. In January 2002, the applicant was denied enrollment in BNCOC Course 600-6, for failure to meet body fat standards.
6. On 25 January 2002, as a result of her disenrollment from BNCOC her promotion to pay grade E-6 was revoked by Orders 025-21, dated 25 January 2002, with an effective date of 7 January 2002. On 6 February 2002, her reduction orders were amended by Orders 037-3, dated 6 January 2002, to change the effective date of her reduction to 6 January 2002.
7. The applicant’s chain of command verified that the applicant met the body fat composition prior to her enrollment in BNCOC and after she returned to the unit after being denied enrollment, and questioned the accuracy and validity of the tape test. One member of her command noted that the applicant was in compliance with the standards outlined in Army Regulation 600-9 prior to her departure to attend BNCOC. Upon her arrival at BNCOC the test was administered by three different groups of NCO’s with three different results. After the applicant’s return to the Personnel Information Systems Directorate (PERSINSD) she was administered a Health Assessment Evaluation at DeWitt Army Medical Center and found to be in compliance with Army standards.
8. On 7 March 2002, the Headquarters, Department of Army NCOES Reinstatement Panel reinstated the applicant to the promotion and BNCOC lists with the stipulation that she be rescheduled as soon as practical and that she complete the course prior to promotion. The Reinstatement Panel did not specify the basis for their decision to permit the applicant to be reenrolled in the BNCOC.
9. The applicant reenrolled in BNCOC on 12 May 2002 and successfully completed the course on 17 July 2002.
10. The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-6, with a date of rank and effective date of 17 July 2002.
11. The DA Form 1059, dated 6 January 2002 the applicant requested be removed from her records was not filed in her records.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence indicates that there was clearly some consistency problems with the applicant’s weight verification at the time she was originally scheduled to report to BNCOC. The fact that she was permitted to be reenrolled and have her name restored to the promotion list by the Reinstatement Panel supports a conclusion that those inconsistencies may have erroneously contributed to her dismissal from the BNCOC. As such, the Board concludes that the applicant should not be further penalized by the retention of documents in her Official Military Personnel File which were the result of questionable information. To avoid future disadvantages and avoid confusion, the applicant’s reduction orders (Orders 025-21, dated 25 January 2002) and the orders with amended the reduction orders (Orders 037-3, dated 6 February 2002) should be expunged from the applicant’s file.
2. In the interest of justice and equity the applicant’s date of rank and effective date should be adjusted from 17 July 2002, to her original promotion date of 1 September 2001, with entitlement to all appropriate back pay and allowances.
3. 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:
a. by showing the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 September 2001, with entitlement to back pay and allowances as appropriate, and
b. by removing from her records reduction Orders 025-21,dated 25 January 2002, and amendment Orders 037-3, dated 6 February 2002.
BOARD VOTE:
__JHL___ __RKS __ __JTM__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Joann H. Langston______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002080299 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030717 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | 133.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067901C070402
The applicant requests that her records be corrected by reinstating her original date of rank of 1 January 2000 to staff sergeant, with differential pay between E-5 and E-6 for the period beginning 12 October 2000 to the present. The applicant’s military records show that the applicant was conditionally promoted to staff sergeant on 1 January 2000, contingent on successful completion of BNCOC. The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-6, with a date of rank and effective date of 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090129C070212
The applicant applied for and received a waiver of her RE Code and enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in the pay grade of E-3 on 9 June 1998. In order for the applicant to show that she should be restored to her original DOR and to have 79V restored as her PMOS, the applicant would have to show through the evidence submitted with her application as well as the evidence of record that she did not fail the academic requirements of the course, that she was unjustly removed from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007483
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 19 January 2007, from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Accordingly, as required by the applicable regulation at the time, she was issued a DA Form 1059 that shows she marginally achieved course standards in that she met the academic requirements but failed to meet body fat standards IAW AR 600-9 during this course. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082236C070215
The applicant requests that her attendance at BNCOC (Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course) be reinstated and that her promotion to pay grade E-6 be restored. She states, in effect, that she was released from BNCOC after failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). When the applicant submitted her application to the Board in November 2002 she indicated her pay grade as E-6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014443
There is no indication or evidence in the applicant's records that she was enrolled in or completed Phase II of MOS 54B BNCOC as stipulated in her promotion orders. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was conditionally promoted to SSG/E-6 on 30 June 1998 in MOS 54B contingent upon her successful completion of BNCOC. With respect to the applicant's contention that she should be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7, there is no evidence that the applicant met grade and/or NCOES...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006808
The applicant requests removal of reduction orders from her records. On 30 March 2000, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, Missouri, published Orders Number 090-1 reducing the applicant from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 effective 30 March 2000 and with a date of rank of 1 July 1992 under the authority of Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction). Evidence of record shows that the applicant completed BNCOC on 15 August 2000, less than year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002101
The applicant, who at the time was serving in the rank and pay grade of sergeant, E-5, was conditionally promoted to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant, E-6. The evidence shows that he continued to perform the duties of a conditionally promoted staff sergeant for a period of nearly 3 years and 10 months and throughout this period he earned NCO evaluation reports that were in the "successful" range; however, he was reduced to pay grade E-5 on 5 October 2000 for not having completed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008272
Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of this Army regulation shows that the DA Form 1059 is filed on the performance section of the OMPF. The evidence of record shows that the applicant failed to achieve course standards for Phase II of 19D BNCOC from 22 May 2008 to 2 July 2008. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013486
The additional instructions state: * the promotion was not valid and this order will be revoked if the Soldier concerned is not in a promotable status on the effective date of the promotion * the Soldier must enroll in the appropriate NCOES course within 90 days of the effective date of promotion or release from active duty * failure to enroll, attend, or complete any portion (of the NCOES) within the allowable time frames will result in referral to a reduction board in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069173C070402
On 21 August 2001, the applicant submitted a request for attendance at BNCOC. Another e-mail was provided, dated 10 September 2001, which stated that his DA Form 4187 was received for attendance at BNCOC during the period 1 October through 15 December 2001. The applicant submitted a second request for deferment from active duty BNCOC and requested that he attend the USAR BNCOC.