| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her records be corrected to show she was promoted to pay grade E-4.
APPLICANT STATES: That she was erroneously flagged and not promoted due to the erroneous flag. She provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 November 1998. She was discharged on 28 December 2001 for disability. Her DD Form 214 shows her rank and pay grade as Private First Class, E-3 and her date of rank as 1 October 1999.
The applicant provides a DA Form 4187 dated 8 July 2002 which shows her company commander approved her advancement to Specialist, E-4 effective 1 October 2001.
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 considered the DA Form 4817 provided by the applicant. However, that DA Form 4187 is dated more than 6 months after the applicant separated from the Army. It provides no explanation of why it was not prepared prior to the applicant separating and provides no explanation of why the applicant was "erroneously flagged," which prevented her promotion in a timely manner.
3. The only evidence available concerning the circumstances surrounding the applicant's failure to be promoted in a timely manner is her self-authored statement. There is no corroborating evidence from her chain of command. Therefore, the Board concludes there is insufficient evidence on which to base granting the relief requested.
4. 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
__fne___ __sp____ __rd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085297 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031007 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.09 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000141
The applicant states, in effect, he went before a promotion board for SGT on 2 May 2013. a. Paragraph 5a states "Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the Administrative Records Corrections (ARC) process if he/he would have made the DA promotion point cutoff score, but was in a suspension of favorable action status and he/he was exonerated, the case was closed favorably, or a FLAG for adverse action was removed, provided the Soldier was otherwise qualified." While...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090867C070212
The applicant requests that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show she separated in the pay grade of E-4. The applicant provides copies of a DA From 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 29 April 1999, a Body Fat Worksheet, dated 14 April 1999, a DA Form 268, dated 31 August 1999, a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 24 February 2000, and a copy of her DD Form 214. The Board determined that the evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021246
The applicant requests: a. correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show/add: * her rank/grade as specialist (SPC)/E-4 vice private first class (PFC)/E-3 * her date of rank (DOR) to SPC of 27 September 2013 * her net active service as 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days vice 3 years, 5 months, and 10 days * the Army Achievement Medal b. correction of her separation orders and discharge certificate to show her rank as SPC. The applicant provides: *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064804C070421
The Chief of the Promotions Branch at PERSCOM notified the applicant by memorandum, dated 9 January 2001, that the Secretary of the Army, acting on behalf of the President of the United States, had removed his name from the FY 1999 Captain Promotion List and that, as a result, he would not be promoted. “Second, my promotion was delayed because, ‘[the applicant’s rank and name omitted] was in a non-promotable status on 1 February 2000 because he was flagged by this [18th Aviation Brigade]...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058633C070421
The Board notes the recommendation contained in the ODCSPER advisory opinion, which recommends the applicant not be advanced or provided back pay because she failed to provide sufficient documentation in a timely manner. It appears that there was a failure on the part of USAREC officials to document the applicant’s referral prior to her entering active duty, as is required by regulation. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the PV2...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055498C070420
The applicant requests that her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD From 214, be corrected to show her rank and grade as Private, E-2 (PV2), her date of separation as 7 February 2001, her net active service as 1 year, 2 months, and 18 days of service, and that she was a high school graduate or equivalent. In December 2000, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to her appointed place of duty. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003082299C070212
At the time the promotion was revoked, ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request for de facto status be granted in accordance with regulatory guidance. It states that when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the soldier to retain pay and allowances received in that status. In view of the facts of this case, and based on the de facto status determination and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050016625
John M. Moeller | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states, in effect, that he should have been promoted to SSG on 1 April 2001, not on 1 September 2003. In a 10 July 2001 memorandum to the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), the applicant's company commander recommended approval of a request to promote the applicant to SSG effective 1 April 2001 as an exception to policy.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059881C070421
She claims that her original promotion was determined to be erroneous by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) based on the fact that she was in a nonpromotable status. Subsequent to being evaluated by the MMRB, on 1 November 1999, the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG in MOS 31R. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG, in MOS 31R, subsequent to the MMRB concluding that she could not perform duties in that MOS based on her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100104C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that her record be corrected to show she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in the rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4). It indicates a review of the applicant’s record revealed that she was erroneously accessed in the rank and pay grade of PFC/E-3 on 1 October 2002, but had in fact been promoted to SPC/E-4 on 15 September 2002, while a member of the USAR. In view of the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s...