| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be promoted to Sergeant, E-5.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was hospitalized and placed on a profile due to a racially-based attack against him and fellow black soldiers. He was then taken off the promotion list, even after he made the cutoff score for promotion.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 December 1993. He was promoted to Specialist, E-4 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 68B on 1 June 1995.
On an unknown date, the applicant was placed on the E-5 promotion recommendation list.
On 16 September 1997, the applicant was released from the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) for failing to achieve course standards. He returned to PLDC the following year. He was released from PLDC on 24 July 1998 for again failing to achieve course standards.
On an unknown date, the applicant was assigned to duty in Hungary. On 21 May 2000, he was on rest and relaxation when he was assaulted in a bar. At the time, he was diagnosed with a brain concussion and contusions of the elbow and humerus. A presumptive In Line of Duty finding was made. Shortly thereafter, he developed migraines and post-traumatic stress disorder.
On 28 February 2003, the applicant was released from active duty and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List in pay grade E-4.
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). PERSCOM noted that the applicant met an announced cutoff score for promotion to Sergeant for MOS 68B on 1 May 1998; however, he was not qualified for promotion due to not completing PLDC. PERSCOM stated the applicant was removed from the promotion recommended list due to implementation of a new Army policy. The policy states that soldiers on the promotion recommended list who have failed the required noncommissioned officer education system (NCOES) and as of 1 December 1999 have not been rescheduled or enrolled in that course will be removed from the promotion recommended list. The applicant had not been rescheduled to attend PLDC.
A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. He did not respond within the given time frame.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides in pertinent part that soldiers are required to be graduates of PLDC prior to promotion to Sergeant. Soldiers are allowed to compete for promotion to Sergeant but cannot be promoted until completion of PLDC. A soldier will be removed from a recommended list when he or she fails the required NCOES for cause or academic reasons.
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 evidence of record shows the applicant attended, but failed to complete for academic reasons, PLDC in September 1997 and in July 1998. He could not have been promoted to Sergeant on 1 May 1998 because he had failed PLDC.
2. PERSCOM advised that the applicant was removed from the promotion recommended list in December 1999 due to implementation of a new Army policy requiring his removal because he had failed PLDC and had never been rescheduled to attend.
3. The applicant was not injured in the attack in Hungary until May 2000. There is no evidence of record and he provides none to show he recompeted for promotion and was placed back on a recommended list after 1 December 1999. Therefore, the fact he was in the disability processing system was irrelevant.
4. The applicant would not have been eligible for promotion to Sergeant, E-5 in any case since he did not complete the required PLDC.
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
__sc___ ___jm___ __sp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082313 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030610 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074099C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant submits promotion board proceeding documents showing that he was selected for promotion to sergeant E-5 in 1998, and that he was placed on a recommended list for promotion. That command stated that while the applicant did meet the 1 July 1998 cutoff score for promotion in his specialty he had not completed PLDC, a requirement for promotion; additionally, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071512C070402
As a result of his request not to be further considered for attendance at the ANCOC and this DA action to remove his name from the promotion list, the applicant’s conditional promotion to SFC/E-7 was revoked and de-facto status was granted him for the period 1 November 1996 through 25 October 1999. He also indicated that because the applicant’s promotion was conditioned on completion of a required course, his academic failure of this course and his later request to no longer be considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009448C070208
On 22 June 2004, the HRC approved a request for exception to policy to reinstate the applicant's name to the promotion selection by-name-list and to subsequently promote him to SGT, with a retroactive DOR and effective date of 1 January 2004, granted he was otherwise eligible. Soldiers were allowed to compete for promotion to SGT, but could not be promoted to SGT until completion of PLDC. Had he not been erroneously removed, he would have been promoted to SGT in MOS 96B prior to being...
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001061235C070421
The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC and to the pay grade of E-7. A staff member of the Board also reviewed similar cases that have been reviewed by the Board and finds that in all such cases, the Board supported the PERSCOM decision to promote individuals who had been reinstated after they completed the ANCOC; however, it was always with a retroactive DOR (to the date they were originally promoted), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances (minus the de facto...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002070889C070402
On 12 December 2001, the applicant's commander requested the applicant be reinstated on the SFC Promotion List as he failed to attend through no fault of his own and attempts had been made to reschedule him prior to the start date of the 2 May 2001 ANCOC class. Soldiers who fail to successfully complete or do not attend their scheduled NCOES class will be administratively reduced and removed from the list. The applicant was promoted to SFC conditional upon his successfully completing ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03092989C070212
The applicant provides – A senior civilian at Fort Eustis also supported her request and stated that he had adjusted the applicant's schedule to allow her an opportunity to prepare herself to successfully complete ANCOC. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned by scheduling the applicant for attendance at the next available ANCOC, and if successfully completed, promoting her to sergeant first class effective and with a date of...