| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. N. Troup | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his date of rank to specialist (SPC/E-4) be backdated to 10 April 2001, the date he was administratively reduced.
3. The applicant states that, without prior notice, he came to work on 10 April 2001 and was told that he was reduced from SPC to private first class (PFC/E-3) because of multiple Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failures. Later, he was provided reduction orders on 16 May 2001 reducing him to PFC effective 10 April 2001. He argues that his reduction was administratively incorrect and did not afford him the opportunity to appeal through his chain of command. He adds that he was advanced to SPC in December 2002.
4. In support of his application, the applicant submits: a copy of orders, dated 16 May 2001, reducing him to the rank of PFC, effective 10 April 2001; an Appeal for Reinstatement to Former Grade of SPC/E-4; a Memorandum of Support, dated 19 December 2002; and a Commander’s Statement, Re: Appeal of SPC Clark.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he is a SPC/E-4 serving on active duty in the Regular Army. He is currently assigned to Headquarters and Support Company, 52nd Combat Engineer Battalion (Heavy), Fort Carson, Colorado.
6. On 16 May 2001, the 52nd Combat Engineer Battalion (Heavy) published orders reducing the applicant from SPC/E-4 to PFC/E-3 because of his inability to pass the APFT after numerous attempts. The reduction was made effective 10 April 2001.
7. On 12 December 2002, the applicant was promoted to SPC/E-4, effective 1 October 2002.
8. On 13 December 2002, the applicant appealed his earlier reduction through his company commander to his battalion commander stating that he was not afforded due process prior to his administrative reduction.
9. On 23 December 2002, the applicant’s company commander recommended that the applicant’s appeal be denied. He stated that he believed the motives for the applicant’s reduction were not malicious, but rather punitive due to the applicant’s inability to past the APFT. He stated that the chain of command had bent over backwards to assist the applicant. However, he had failed the APFT at least 9 times before eventually passing on 17 September 2002. He concluded by stating that the evidence of record did not support the applicant’s claim of inequity or injustice.
10. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotions Branch, Alexandria, Virginia. The staff of the Promotions Branch opined that the applicant’s request to adjust his date of rank and effective date to SPC/E-4 from 1 October 2002 to 20 June 2000 (sic) be denied. However, the staff of the Promotions Branch recommended that the applicant’s date of rank and effective date to PFC/E-3 be adjusted from 10 April 2001 to 16 May 2001, based on the date the soldier was notified of the reduction. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and notified of his right to submit a rebuttal within 30 days from the date of the letter (23 April 2003) forwarding the rebuttal. The applicant did not submit a rebuttal.
11. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. This regulation includes policy statements, operating tasks, rules in support of operating tasks, and sequential steps of each operating task. Chapter 7 states that if a Soldier in the grade of CPL/SPC and below is being reduced one grade without referral to a reduction board, the reduction action must be accomplished within 30 duty days after receipt of documentary evidence and before separation or retention is considered.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s contention that he was not notified prior to the effective date (10 April 2001) of his impending reduction is correct. However, the applicant did not initiate an appeal of this reduction until 13 December 2002.
2. The PERSCOM advisory opinion recommended that the applicant's request be denied. However, it did recommend that his date of reduction from SPC to PFC be adjusted from 10 April 2001 to 16 May 2001 based upon the date the applicant was actually notified of the reduction.
3. In accordance with the recommendation of the advisory opinion, the Board determined that the applicant’s date of reduction should be the date the reduction order was posted. Therefore, the applicant’s effective date of rank to PFC/E-3 should be reflected as 16 May 2001, not 10 April 2001.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the effective date of rank of the individual concerned to PFC/E-3 is 16 May 2001 and by adjusting his pay and allowances for the period 10 April 2001 to 16 May 2001.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__rjw___ __lds___ __mjnt__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Raymond J. Wagner
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003085657 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031028 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017885
There is no record of her military contract to show she should have been on active duty when she was serving on active duty during the last year. A Corrected By Name List Headquarters, Department of the Army, Monthly SGT/SSG Promotion Selection Name List, dated 28 June 2012, which shows her name listed as being qualified for promotion to SSG/E-6 on 1 July 2012. c. A DA Form 4856, dated 29 June 2012, which shows she received counseling for the initiation of an investigation after her chain...
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003088494C070403
He stated that after reviewing the applicant's December 2000 body fat content worksheet and his height and weight data dating back to February 1999, evaluation reports, and related medical documentation, he believed that his weight gain of approximately 18 pounds was directly related to his hernia, the repair surgery, and his physical inability to conduct a rigorous fitness regime from December 2000 through October 2001. Therefore, the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he...
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 | CY2001 | 2001060679C070421
Item I1, Section I, Enlisted Records Brief, prepared on 12 April 2001 shows applicant’s rank and Date of Rank (DOR) as: SPC 19960615. His DD Form 214 correctly shows his rank as PFC; however, the date of rank shown in item 12h is not correct. The date of rank shown on the DD Form 214 is that for the former rank of Specialist Four held by the applicant before he received nonjudicial punishment.
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 | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087857C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: The evidence of record shows that, on 5 February 1999, the applicant enlisted in the PAARNG and as a Reserve of the Army. The evidence of record shows the applicant’s rank should be SPC/E-4 and his date of rank should be 16 April 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018041
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's previous request for removal a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 20 August 2013, from his official military personnel file (OMPF). Counsel provides: * DA Form 2627 * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigation Officer (IO)/Board of Officers) * Certificate of Promotion, dated 1 March 2013 * two orders * a Defense Finance and Accounting Service Military Leave and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001796C070205
The standard time in grade for promotion to 1LT is 2 years or 18 months. The officer’s records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date promotion service is completed. While the advisory opinion noted that an updated security clearance and current physical were required at the time the applicant was due for promotion, it is acknowledged that there is no evidence to show he did not meet those...