| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | ||
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member |
2. The applicant requests that the date of rank (DOR) and effective date of his promotion to the pay grade of E-8 be backdated to 1 June 2002.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that his sequence number for promotion came up on 1 June 2002; however, he was not promoted because he had no security clearance on file and was not notified that a security clearance was required for him to be promoted. He goes on to state that it was not until August 2002 that he found out from personnel in the promotions sections at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, who after several phone calls to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Promotions Branch, found out that his sequence number had been passed over because of the lack of a security clearance. He then went to a nearby unit, because his unit was deployed to the National Training Center and got an interim security clearance. He further states that he faxed the security clearance to the PERSCOM and within 2 days, orders were faxed back to him that promoted him effective 16 September 2002. He continues by stating that he has contacted officials at all levels to attempt to correct the injustice to no avail and contends that had the system not broken down and he had been notified in time, he could have been promoted on time.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 8 September 1983 for a period of 3 years and training as a turret mechanic. He has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 August 1995. He was selected by the Calendar Year 2002 Master Sergeant Selection Board and the results were released on 20 March 2002, announcing his sequence number as 26.
5. On 8 May 2002, the PERSCOM Promotions Branch dispatched a memorandum through the Fort Sill Personnel Service Center (PSC) to the applicant, notifying him of the requirement to have a security clearance in order to be promoted. Officials at Fort Sill indicate that the memorandum was received by Regular Mail at the PSC on 30 May 2002.
6. On 1 June 2002, promotions were made through the applicant's sequence number; however, he was not promoted because his records indicated that he did not have a security clearance.
7. On 16 September 2002, the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-8, with an effective date and DOR of 16 September 2002, the date his clearance was granted.
8. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM Promotions Branch which opines, in effect, that the applicant was not fully qualified for promotion to the pay grade of E-8 until he obtained the required clearance; therefore, he is not entitled to a retroactive promotion. Officials at the PERSCOM opined that to grant his request would afford him an unfair advantage not afforded to other soldiers.
9. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant who responded not only with his own response but support of the chain of command as well. The applicant responded to the effect, that he was not afforded the advantage of being notified in advance of the requirement to have a security clearance in order to be promoted on time and contended that had he been afforded such an advantage there would never had been a problem. The supporting documents from the chain of command also confirm that he received no notification of the requirement to have a clearance and that had the chain of command been notified, a clearance would have been obtained in time to allow the applicant to be promoted on time.
10. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of enlisted personnel. It provides, in paragraph 1-16, that promotion to the pay grades of E-8 and E-9 requires a favorable National Agency Check, Local Agency Check, and Credit Check (NACLC) or a security clearance of secret or higher. Table 4-2 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the promotion work center is responsible for ensuring that all soldiers are in a promotable status at the time they are to be promoted and for effecting notification to soldiers.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the evidence clearly shows that the applicant was not fully qualified for promotion to the pay grade of E-8, the evidence also shows that the applicant was not timely notified that he was not fully qualified until well after his promotion sequence number group had been promoted and he had not received his promotion.
2. As a result, the applicant was denied a benefit that he otherwise would have been able to receive had he been notified in sufficient time to get his clearance before 1 June 2002.
3. While the Board understands the need to maintain consistent application of promotion policies, the Board also understands that it is not the intent of promotion policies to unnecessarily disadvantage soldiers or deprive them of benefits that they otherwise would receive.
4. The Board finds that the system failed the applicant in this case by not notifying him in a timely manner and that to grant his request is not granting him an unfair advantage, but simply putting him back where he would have been had the promotion system not failed him.
5. Accordingly, he should be promoted to the pay grade of E-8 effective 1 June 2002, with a DOR of 1 June 2002, and entitlement to all back pay and allowances.
6. 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 showing that the individual was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 effective 1 June 2002, with a DOR of 1 June 2002 and entitlement to all back pay and allowances that result from this correction.
BOARD VOTE:
___lf____ ___tk ___ __mkp___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Margaret K. Patterson___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002081223 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 315 | 131.0500/DOR |
| 2. 314 | 131.0400/EFF DATE |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064810C070421
The opinion points out that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY2000 MSG Selection Board and was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 22 August 2001, the date his secret clearance was granted. 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: Records show the applicant’s security clearance was completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015123
AHRC stated that the applicant was requesting an adjustment to his MSG DOR from 27 December 2005 to 1 February 2002. Promotions were made through his sequence number on 1 February 2002; however, the applicant did not meet the security clearance requirement for promotion to MSG. AHRC stated that on 18 January 2006, the applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 27 December 2005, the day his security clearance was granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069200C070402
There is no evidence available to the Board which shows the date the applicant's security clearance was revoked. The opinion also states that the applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 5 April 2001, the day his secret clearance was granted. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072269C070403
The regulation states that promotion from specialist through sergeant first class requires the clearance required by the promotion MOS (military occupational specialty) or an interim clearance at the same level. The applicant’s military records show that on 2 May 2000 PERSCOM notified the applicant, then a sergeant first class, that promotion to master sergeant required a favorable National Agency Check (NAC) or a security clearance of secret or higher; and that his security status...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066540C070402
The local personnel management officer, in a memorandum to the applicant’s battalion commander advised that after a careful review of all of the facts in the case and close coordination with Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA), Senior Enlisted Promotions Branch, the applicant's request for change of the effective date of his promotion would be returned without action. The applicant was promoted to master sergeant with a date of rank of 26 April 2001, the date his secret clearance was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04103181C070208
The applicant states that he deployed with his unit to Iraq in April 2003 and was unaware that his security clearance had lapsed or that his promotion would be delayed as a result. The evidence which is available indicates that the announcement of individuals selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant following the FY03 selection board occurred in April 2003, after the applicant had already been deployed to Iraq. Consequently, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion, it would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005979C070206
On 30 September 2005, the unit personnel security officer informed the Board analyst that the applicant's security clearance had been revoked (for an unknown reason) in October 1986. The evidence of record shows the applicant was selected for promotion by FY2005 MSG Promotion Selection Board and promotions were made through his sequence number on 1 December 2004. The email from the applicant's personnel security officer indicates his clearance was completed on 14 March 2005 and he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078424C070215
The applicant states that he should have never been coded as a "No Show" for ANCOC. 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. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072743C070403
On 20 August 1997, the OKARNG issued a NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) honorably discharging the applicant from the OKARNG as a SGT, pay grade E-5, by reason of the individual's request. The investigation further substantiated that: the applicant submitted false information on his application for Army National Guard federal recognition in January 1987 by stating “No” to the question, “Have you ever been arrested or convicted by a civil court of other than minor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006794C070208
Peter B. Fisher | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant’s promotion was not authorized on 1 May 2003 because he did not meet the security requirement necessary to be promoted on that date. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was granted an interim “Secret” security clearance on 30 April 2003; that he was...