| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement to the pay grade of E-7.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1999 and was scheduled to attend the advanced noncommissioned officer course (ANCOC) in February 2000. He was provided a memorandum from the surgeon's office recommending that his attendance be delayed until his medical condition stabilized. However, his reservation was not cancelled and he was declared a no-show. He goes on to state that he was again enrolled in ANCOC at Fort Lewis, Washinton, on 1 June 2001 and on 3 June 2001, he was admitted to the hospital for elevated serum glucose, blurred vision and polyuria. He was dismissed from the ANCOC without prejudice due to medical reasons and was unaware that he had to apply for reinstatement within 6 months. He continues by stating that he was enrolled a third time at Fort Lee, Virginia, on 3 January 2002; however, his seat was cancelled until he was determined to be medically fit for duty. He was found medically fit for duty on 5 December 2001; however, he was under investigation at the time and could not attend. He was exonerated by the investigation on 6 February 2002; however, he could not be reconsidered for reinstatement until he had been reduced to the pay grade of
E-6. He further states that he should not be reduced in rank until such time as he attends the ANCOC and fails to achieve course standards.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted on 28 October 1969 and served on active duty until he was honorably released from active duty on 15 September 1971 and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training).
On 22 May 1981, he enlisted in the USAR for assignment to a troop program unit and remained in the USAR through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 9 March 1984.
In 1987, he attended the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) and failed to achieve course standards. On 25 March 1989, after having been re-enrolled, he completed the course standards for the PLDC.
He entered active duty in 1989 in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program for duty as a recruiter and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 October 1991.
While stationed in Indianapolis, Indiana, he was conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 December 1995 and attended the ANCOC from 21 February 1996, until he was eliminated for failing the end of core retest on 14 March 1996. His Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) indicates that he did not demonstrate the academic potential for selection to higher level schooling/training. He was reduced to the pay grade of E-6 on 3 December 1996.
He was again conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1999, while stationed at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. His promotion orders specified that soldiers who accepted a conditional promotion and are subsequently denied enrollment, declared a "No Show", becomes an academic failure, or otherwise does not meet graduation requirements, will be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion. It also stated that the promotion is not valid and would be revoked if he was not in a promotable status. He attended the ANCOC at Fort Lewis on 2 June 2001. He failed the initial Army Physical Fitness Test upon arrival and before he could be retested, he was medically released from the course without prejudice on 3 June 2001, with entitlement to reenrollment.
On 1 December 2001, the applicant was placed under a suspension of favorable personnel actions (Flagged) pending an investigation to determine if he had fraudulently reenlisted. He remained flagged until 2 February 2002, when the commander determined that there was no evidence that the applicant had falsified or was aware of erroneous information regarding his medical condition or reenlistment. He informed the applicant that attendance at the ANCOC would not be approved until he had been medically cleared to the extent that the command surgeon was satisfied. If not medically cleared, he would be processed through medical channels.
On 19 February 2002, his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 was again revoked and he applied to the AGR Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Reinstatement Panel on 22 March 2002, requesting reinstatement to ANOC and reinstatement to the pay grade of E-7 upon completion. There is no evidence in the available records to show the outcome of that request.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. It provides, in pertinent part, that effective 1 October 1993, soldiers whose sequence numbers are reached for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and have not completed or attended ANCOC are promoted conditional upon their completion of ANCOC (provided they are not a previous ANCOC failure). Soldiers who fail to meet this condition will be reduced and/or removed from the promotion selection list.
Army Regulation 140-158 provides policy and procedures for the selection of soldiers for attendance at Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) courses, incorporates the select, train and promote philosophy in the USAR enlisted promotion systems paralleling the Active Army system and authorizes promotions conditioned on completion of required NCOES courses. It provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier may be promoted on the condition he or she enroll in and successfully complete the course required for that grade. If the grade requires the soldier 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. An extra 12 months will be allowed for completion of each phase of ANCOC for courses with more than two phases. When a soldier is eliminated from a course for academic failure, or for reasons other than for cause, the soldier's name will be removed from a promotion list and if conditionally promoted, the soldier will be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion.
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. 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.
2. The Board has noted the applicant's contention that he was unjustly reduced in grade based on his failure to complete the ANCOC due to medical reasons and finds it to be without merit.
3. The applicant was originally conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 in 1995 and after failing the ANCOC (academically), he was reduced back to the pay grade of E-6 on 3 December 1996.
4. The applicant was again conditionally promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1999, which in itself was an erroneous promotion because the applicant had previously failed the ANCOC.
5. The applicable regulation provides that a soldier who has previously failed the ANCOC cannot be afforded a conditional promotion. Therefore, until he completed the ANCOC, he was not in a promotable status.
6. Although the applicant has established that he had medical problems at the time he attended the ANCOC the second time, he should not have been attending the ANCOC in the pay grade of E-7.
7. Furthermore, the applicant was conditionally promoted in 1999 (albeit erroneously) and at the time his promotion was revoked in 2002, he had still not completed the ANCOC. While it appears that he had sufficient time to attend the ANCOC, the Board is not convinced that he made every reasonable effort to attend and complete the course in a timely manner. However, the fact remains that he should have been attending in the pay grade of E-6 until he successfully completed the course.
8. The Board also finds that his orders were properly revoked not only because he was erroneously promoted, but also because he was given more than the required time allowed to complete the NCOES requirements. Accordingly, the Board finds no error or injustice in this case.
9. 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
____tbr__ __kh____ ___ao___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082572 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 311 | 131.0200/prom revoked |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2004 | 20040000768C070208
One of the statements, included with his appeal for reinstatement, noted that in February 2003 the applicant was “selected to attend an ANCOC class” and that immediately upon notification he, (the author of the statement), began a physical training program with the applicant. In November 2003 the Army’s personnel command released a message announcing that the NCOES requirement for promotion to pay grades E-5 through E-7 was suspended. While the Board is certainly sympathetic to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069572C070402
The packet submitted by the applicant’s battalion commander also includes confirmation of the applicant’s medical problems between April 2000 and August 2001, and a medical document that verifies that she was placed on a temporary physical profile on 8 August 2001, which prevented her attendance at her scheduled September 2001 ANCOC class. The evidence of record and the applicant’s battalion commander confirm that she was on a valid temporary physical profile that prohibited her attendance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009089C070208
The Army's ANCOC general attendance policy, outlined by the NCOES branch at the Army's personnel center, states that Soldiers who, on or after 1 October 1993, accept a conditional promotion, and who are subsequently denied enrollment, declared a no-show, become academic failures, or otherwise do not meet graduation requirements, will have their promotions revoked and will be administratively removed from the centralized promotion list. Army Regulation established the policy that if a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002762C070208
A 15 July 2002 memorandum, the document which the applicant is asking to be removed from his file, states that the applicant’s name was administratively removed from the promotion list based on his “release from ANCOC due to [his] failure to meet the standards of AR [Army Regulation] 600-9.” Army Regulation 600-9 established the Army’s Weight Control Program. Although the applicant has requested that the 15 July 2002 memorandum notifying him of his removal from ANCOC be expunged from his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000235C070205
U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 347-21, dated 13 December 2001, authorized the applicant’s promotion to sergeant first class/pay grade E-7, effective 1 January 2002. The applicant's service records did not contain any medical records and the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence showing that he was medically disqualified for attendance in ANCOC. Evidence shows the applicant was selected for a conditional promotion for the grade of sergeant first class.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069175C070402
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was administratively reduced by a US Army Reserve (USAR) Army Guard/Reserve (AGR) Enlisted Reduction Panel for failing to meet the conditions of his promotion to SFC. It states, in pertinent part, that when a soldier fails to complete a required NCOES course, the soldier's name will be removed from a promotion list, and if conditionally promoted, the soldier will be reduced in accordance with paragraph 7-12d. The applicant stated that his condition...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071116C070402
This order also contained special instructions indicating that those members accepting a conditional promotion and who are subsequently denied enrollment, declared a no-show, become an academic failure or otherwise do not meet graduation requirements of the required Noncommissioned Education System (NCOES) course would be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion. On 25 February 2002, the applicant’s battalion commander submitted a request to this Board, asking...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062964C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he was granted reinstatement to the ANCOC, which he completed; however, his DOR was changed to 3 July 2001, to coincide with the date he completed the ANCOC. Personnel who apply for reinstatement, who are reinstated, will receive a DOR and effective date as of the date they graduate the ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012408
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The sergeant major informed the applicant that he would not be allowed to attend ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of AR 600-9 and would subsequently be demoted to the grade of E-6 based upon his conditional promotion. The applicant did not provide evidence to show, and his records do not indicate that his medical condition required processing through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).