RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 November 2003
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003083681
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. Robert J. McGowan | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | |Member |
| |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | |Member |
The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be placed before an
enlisted standby advisory promotion board (STAB) for promotion
consideration to Sergeant First Class, SFC/E-7.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that the 2001 SFC Promotion Board
selected him for promotion in military occupational specialty (MOS) 79R,
Recruiter. Because he had reclassified to MOS 79V, Retention and
Transition NCO, he was forced to decline the promotion or revert back to
MOS 79R. He declined the promotion.
3. The applicant further states that he was not given promotion
consideration by the 2002 SFC Promotion Board because that board
erroneously believed his was already promotable. On 15 July 2002, his
records were placed before a STAB, but he was not selected.
4. The applicant adds that he does not believe the records that went
before the 15 July 2002 STAB were complete and that, in essence, he should
be given a second chance.
5. The applicant provides a memorandum and various documents relating to
his removal from the 2001 SFC promotion list, and his review by the 2002
STAB.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military records show that he served on active duty
from 28 August 1984 to 16 July 1991. On 25 September 1991, he enlisted in
the US Army Reserve (USAR) in MOS 75F, Personnel Information Systems
Management Specialist. He was promoted to Sergeant on 25 July 1994.
2. In 1997, the applicant became a recruiter (MOS 79R) and was promoted to
Staff Sergeant on 11 August 1997. He served as a recruiter until 2001 when
he attended the USAR Retention and Transition NCO Course from 29 May - 15
June 2001. Upon completion of the course, he was awarded MOS 79V.
3. The applicant's records were considered for promotion by the 2001 SFC
Promotion Board in MOS 79R. He was selected for promotion, but declined to
revert from MOS 79V to MOS 79R and was removed from the promotion list.
4. The applicant's records were inadvertently not considered for promotion
by the 2002 SFC Promotion Board which convened on 26 February 2002. The
error was discovered and his records were placed before a STAB on 15 July
2002. He was not selected for promotion in MOS 79V.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions,
prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military
personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service,
policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field
to support promotions and reductions. It states, in pertinent part, STABs
are convened to consider records of those Soldiers not reviewed by a
regular board or whose records were not properly constituted, due to a
material error, when reviewed by the regular board. Material error is
considered one sufficient enough to cause the nonselection of a Soldier for
promotion.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant should have been considered for promotion by the 2002 SFC
Promotion Board in February 2002; however, as a result of an administrative
error, he was not considered. This error was corrected by placing the
applicant's records before a STAB on 15 July 2002. Unfortunately, he was
not selected.
2. The applicant has not shown that his records contained a material error
when they went before the 15 July 2002 STAB. Without demonstrating a
material error, he is not entitled to the requested second STAB.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__aao___ __reb___ __ecp___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.
Arthur A. Omartian
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR2003083681 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20031113 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |131.1100 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086775C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records be corrected to show he received his notification of selection for promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 79R in 2001, accepted the promotion, and was promoted to SFC based upon that 2001 selection. APPLICANT STATES : That he was selected for promotion to SFC as a 79R in 2001 but he did not receive that information until 2002, when he was informed that he could not accept the promotion from 2001 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073196C070403
On 17 April 2001, the MP-EPP Manager responded to the request stating that the request was denied. In the applicant's case, he will be eligible to be considered during the January 2002 board. A response was received from the NGB IG, which determined that the applicant was entitled to a STAB since his records were not submitted and was considered to be a material error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071298C070402
Military Personnel Message Number 99-182, Subject: Zones of Consideration for CSM Appointment, Promotion to SGM, Selection for USASMC and QMP (Qualitative Management Program), announced in June 1999 that the CY 99 CSM/SGM/USASMC board would convene in October 1999. On 1 September 1999, the applicant signed a declination statement and his records were therefore not considered by the FY 99 board. The applicant’s OMPF that would have been reviewed by the CY 99 board and the OMPF that was seen...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087293C070212
The applicant states that his revocation is not valid and he should be promoted to SFC effective 1 April 2002 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 1-24b and paragraph 7 of U.S. Total Army Personnel Command's (PERSCOM) (currently known as U.S. Army Human Resources Command) Memorandum for the SFC Selection Board. The opinion also states that the soldier submitted a declination of promotion on 2 May 2002 directly to HQDA Promotions Branch in accordance with Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004368C070208
Counsel further states that while the applicant received his overdue promotion to SSG/E-6 and was selected for and promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB), he was unable to be considered for promotion to MSG/E-8 by the Calendar Year 2004 (CY 2004) MSG/E-8 Promotion Selection Board (PSB) because he had not completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). In a 17 October 2002 application to this Board, the applicant requested immediate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070984C070402
The applicant states that his records were not submitted for consideration for promotion to CW3 during the 2001 promotion board. He also states that his records were up to date and he is eligible and qualified for promotion. Based upon review of the applicant’s records by the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command, it was determined the applicant was erroneously not considered and is eligible for consideration for promotion to CW3 by a Standby Advisory Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070986C070402
The applicant states that the 2001 promotion board did not consider him. Based upon review of the applicant’s records by the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command, it was determined the applicant was erroneously not considered and is eligible for consideration for promotion to CW3 by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under 2001 criteria. He was erroneously not considered for promotion to CW3 by the 2001 Reserve Components Selection Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085857C070212
A physical evaluation board found him physically fit for duty on 11 July 2000 within the limitations of his profile. Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. There is no available evidence to show that the applicant provided the ANCOC personnel any medical evidence showing he was suffering from an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012786
The applicant requests removal of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command memorandum, dated 8 November 2001, subject: Administrative Removal from the Promotion Selection List, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant states: * the memorandum misrepresents his service and may be seen as a negative action by future promotion, qualitative service program, or qualitative management boards that could potentially end his military service erroneously * he joined the Army in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088835C070403
Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 25 June 1991-18 June 1998 when he was separated for immediate reenlistment. An RE code of RE-4 and a separation code of "KGH" apply to those individuals discharged under the provisions of chapter 16-5b, AR 635-200, as a result of a bar to reenlistment. Based upon the stated separation authority and narrative reason for separation, the applicant's separation code and RE code are correct.