| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his rank and pay grade of
sergeant major/E-9 (SGM/E-9) be reinstated.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that his conditional promotion to SGM/E-9 was not conditional as is stipulated in a Department of the Army (DA), Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, policy memorandum, dated 26 June 2002, subject: Conditional Promotion to USAR Sergeant Major (SGM) - Policy Guidance).
4. The applicant’s military records show that on 7 April 1997, Orders Number
97-9, issued by Headquarters, 95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, authorized his promotion to SGM, effective 7 April 1997. The additional instructions of these orders included a statement that indicated that the promotion was contingent on the completion of the Sergeants Major Course (SMC) within two years after enrollment.
5. On 1 June 2001, Orders Number 01-152-003, issued by Headquarters,
95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, directed the applicant’s reduction from SGM/E-9 to master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8), effective 1 June 2001. The authority cited for this reduction was paragraph 7-12(d-g), Army Regulation
140-158.
6. On 12 February 2002, Orders Number 02-043-016, issued by Headquarters, 95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, authorized the applicant’s transfer to the Retired Reserve, effective 1 March 2002. These orders indicated that he was being transferred in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8.
7. On 26 June 2002, the Director of Military Personnel Policy, DA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, published a memorandum containing the policy on conditional promotions to USAR SGM. This policy memorandum stated that the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) rendered a legal opinion that indicated that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, had no authority to authorize conditional promotions of USAR enlisted soldiers to SGM/E-9 during the period 1 October 1993 through 16 January 1998. Consequently, promotions to SGM/E-9 during that period were unconditional in nature. It further specified that this meant that soldiers who were not graduates of the SMC could be promoted to SGM/E-9, but could not be subsequently reduced for failure to complete this course. The authority for conditional promotions to SGM/E-9 took effect on 17 January 1998.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his promotion to SGM/E-9 was not conditional and that his rank and pay grade should be reinstated, and it finds this claim has merit.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to SGM/E-9 on 7 April 1997. As indicated in the 26 June 2002 Director of Military Personnel Policy, DA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, memorandum, the OTJAG rendered a legal opinion that confirmed that DA lacked the authority to authorize conditional promotions to USAR enlisted soldiers during the period 1 October 1993 through 16 January 1998. Consequently, promotions to SGM/E-9 during that period were unconditional in nature.
3. In view of the facts of this case, the Board finds that the applicant’s promotion to SGM/E-9 was unconditional and his subsequent reduction to MSG/E-8 was improper. As a result, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to revoke Orders Number 01-152-003, dated 1 June 2001, issued by Headquarters,
95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, which directed his reduction from
SGM/E-9 to MSG/E-8. Further, the Board concludes that the applicant should be provided any back pay and allowances due as a result of this reinstatement of his rank and pay grade to SGM/E-9.
4. In addition, the Board finds that it would also be appropriate to amend Orders Number 02-043-016, dated 12 February 2002, issued by Headquarters,
95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to show that the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9 vice MSG/E-8 as is currently indicated in these orders.
5. 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 revoking Orders Number 01-152-003, dated 1 June 2001, issued by Headquarters, 95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and restoring the rank and pay grade of the individual concerned to SGM/E-9 as originally effected on
7 April 1997; by providing him any back pay and allowances due as a result of this reinstatement of his rank and pay grade; by amending Orders Number
02-043-016, dated 12 February 2002, issued by Headquarters, 95th Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to show that he was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9 vice MSG/E-8 as is currently shown.
BOARD VOTE:
__JNS__ __MHM _ __ JTM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_ John N. Slone _
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002080571 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 322 | 133.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081504C070215
The applicant states that he was promoted to SGM/E-9 with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 7 April 1997. This authority also stated that promotion orders would be revoked for those soldiers who failed to enroll in or complete SMC. It stated that the OTJAG had rendered a legal opinion that the Department of the Army (DA) Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER), now the G-1, had no authority to authorize conditional promotions of Army Reserve enlisted soldiers to SGM during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081508C070215
The applicant requests, in effect, that his rank and pay grade of sergeant major/E-9 (SGM/E-9) be reinstated. In addition, the Board finds that it would also be appropriate to amend Orders Number 320-5, dated 16 November 1999, issued by Headquarters, 85 th Division, Arlington Heights, Illinois, to show that the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9 vice MSG/E-8 as is currently indicated in these orders. As a result of the restoration of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018371
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was conditionally promoted to SGM effective 1 November 1995, and served in that grade for 3 years, 11 months, and 7 days. He is also entitled to correction to his records to show he was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade SGM, E-9, effective 22 May 2002, and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade SGM, E-9, effective 26 September 2006, and entitled to appropriate pay and allowances associated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019302
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for retroactive promotion to command sergeant major (CSM)/E-9 in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). The applicant provides: * Self-authored statement and 4 self-authored notes * List of qualifications and accomplishments * Two letters from the Sergeants Major Academy, dated 11 October 1991 and 17 October 1991 * Memorandum of request for promotion consideration to sergeant major (SGM), undated * Order Number 296-00053, dated 23...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026207
On 24 December 2002, Headquarters, 78th Division, Edison, NJ, published Orders 02-358-00003 ordering the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR, effective 30 November 2002, after having achieved maximum authorized years of service as a MSG/E-8 (32 years). The applicant was promoted to CSM on 1 December 1997 but his orders were revoked and he received new orders on 3 March 1998 promoting him to SGM/E-9 contingent upon completion of Sergeant Major's Course with 2 years. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019015
(2) Paragraph 3-28b states senior enlisted promotions result when data is provided to the promotion authority that reflects requirements based on current and projected position vacancies; the promotion authority announces the convening date of the selection board, location and description of current and projected position vacancies, zones of consideration for promotion selection, and administrative instructions; personnel records of Soldiers within the zone of consideration are reviewed by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011389
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) to show the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), his military occupational specialty (MOS) as 11B4X, and the Additional Skill Identifier (ASI) of "H" on his MOS of 91B. The applicant requests the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, MOS 11B4X, and the MOS of 91B4H be added to his DD Form 214. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018039
If he had been promoted to MSG, he would have ranked most promotable for SGM. He also states that he is requesting back pay at this time as well as a promotion to SGM comparable to the time that D____ B____ was promoted (around June 1999). As a result, the Board recommends that all of the State of North Carolina and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the applicant was promoted to MSG with a promotion effective date and date of rank of 16...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017608
AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. A temporary profile is given if the condition is considered temporary, the correction or treatment of the condition is medically advisable, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004636
The applicant requests correction of his records by amending his mobilization orders to cover an existing 52-day mobilization gap from 2 December 2005 through 22 January 2006. He further states that he should have been demobilized on 2 December 2005, but had a TCS order that covered his active duty for a period of 180 days. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was mobilized with the 95th Division for the period 2 February 2005 through 1 December 2005.