| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N, Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his Date Of Rank (DOR) to the pay grade E-6 be corrected to his original DOR for that grade. He also requests that he either be promoted to pay grade E-7 or that he be reinstated in his former rank of Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).
2. The applicant states that he should have been immediately considered for promotion to pay grade E-7 when he reverted to his enlisted grade. That didn’t happen because he was erroneously given a DOR to pay grade E-6 of the date of his discharge as an officer.
3. The applicant provides excerpts from his military records, which include documents showing:
- that he was twice not selected for promotion to the rank of CW3,
- that he was to be discharged due to his failure to be selected for promotion;
- that he invoked his statutory right to reenlist at his former enlisted rank; and
- that an error was made by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (now Human Resource Command, Alexandria) in not specifying that his DOR to his enlisted rank would be his original DOR.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1983. He was awarded the military occupational specialties of Patriot Systems Mechanic and Hawk Radar Repairer. He was promoted to pay grade E-6 on 1 March 1989.
2. On 4 February 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged due to his appointment as a Army Reserve warrant officer on active duty.
3. On 4 October 1999, the applicant was notified by PERSCOM that he had not been selected for promotion to CW3, and that he would be separated on 1 March 2000 with entitlement to separation pay.
4. On 8 February 2000, the PERSCOM e-mailed authorization for the applicant to invoke his statutory right to reenlist in his former enlisted grade of E-6. The PERSCOM e-mail did not specify the DOR the applicant was to be assigned.
5. On 1 March 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged from his status as a warrant officer due to his reenlistment in the Regular Army.
6. In an undated memorandum, the applicant’s higher headquarters informed him that because the PERSCOM did not assign him a DOR when he reenlisted, he was assigned a DOR effective the date he reverted to his enlisted status. The applicant was informed that the higher headquarters did not have the authority to correct his DOR, and recommended that he apply to this Board.
7. A Reserve of the Army officer with prior Regular Army enlisted service is entitled to reenlist in the Regular Army per Title10, US Code, Section 3258. The DOR assigned to an officer who reenlists under this statute is the date preceding the reenlistment date by a period equal to the length of time previously served on active duty in the same or higher grade than that in which enlisted.
8. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM. The PERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s DOR be adjusted to 1 March 1989.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant served on active duty in pay grade E-6 or higher from the date he was promoted to that grade on 1 March 1989.
2. As such, the applicant was entitled to a DOR of 1 March 1989 when he reenlisted in pay grade E-6 on 2 March 2000.
3. If the applicant had been given the proper DOR, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to pay grade E-7 immediately following his reenlistment. As such, it would only be fair and equitable to have him considered by an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (ESAB) for promotion to pay grade E-7 under the criteria used for calendar year (CY) 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
4. If the applicant is selected for promotion to pay grade E-7, it would only be fair and equitable to grant him an effective date of promotion and DOR as the date he would have been promoted if he had been properly considered by the promotion board in question.
BOARD VOTE:
___phm_ ____mhm ____fne_ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086046 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 112.02 |
| 2. | 131.03 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051136C070420
The applicant was considered by the next available Reserve CW3 Promotion Board, the FY94 promotion board, but was not selected for promotion. The effective date for the applicant’s promotion to CW3 from the FY95 board His present promotion memorandum to CW4, dated 1 August 2000, should be corrected to be dated 19 May 2000, the adjournment date of the promotion board and therefore the effective date for promotion to CW4 and the date from which CW4 pay and allowances should be paid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058994C070421
Section 14304, Title 10, United States Code (USC), states officer will be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board far enough in advance to completing the MYSIG so that if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer completes the MYSIG. The board adjourned on 2 April 1999 and recommended the applicant for promotion to MAJ. On 14 January 2000, the Chief, Office of Promotions – Reserve...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066258C070421
The opinion also stated that since the applicant met the time in grade (TIG) requirement on 25 June 1999, it is recommended that he be issued a corrected promotion order with a DOR of 25 June 1999, and an effective date of 3 January 2000. Chapter 1405 (Promotions), section 14304 of the ROPMA law, states that officers who are on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a), a Reserve...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064810C070421
The opinion points out that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY2000 MSG Selection Board and was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 22 August 2001, the date his secret clearance was granted. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: Records show the applicant’s security clearance was completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508824C070209
He further states that he successfully appealed the bar to reenlistment and was subsequently selected by the CY 1991 E-7 promotion selection board and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. It opined that the applicant was considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 by the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board and was barred to reenlistment under the QMP by that board. Army Regulation 600-200 serves as the authority for selection and promotion to pay grades E-7 through E-9.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058285C070421
On 7 August 1996, the ABCMR recommended that the applicant’s discharge be revoked and that he be promoted as though he had been selected by the original promotion board (case AC96-07492). The board consider the applicant for promotion. He should be first considered for promotion to LTC by the CY2004 promotion board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083924C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3) be adjusted to 2 August 1998. He was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one (WO1) on 2 August 1990 and was promoted to the rank of CW2 on 2 August 1992.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068891C070402
The correct name of the board to which the applicant refers is the US Army Reserve Command Board (USARC) Colonel Command Assignment Selection Board (CCASB). The USARC CCASB, currently governed by USARC Regulation 140-5, Army Reserve Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel Command Assignment Selection Board Program, revised 1 July 2000, convenes twice a year. He submitted the necessary documents and was later informed that he had an integrity issue concerning his awards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017662
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017662 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. An educational waiver for the requirement to complete 50% of the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC); and b. To qualify for selection, commissioned officers must complete the military education requirements...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060570C070421
The applicant states that his DOR to Major should be 31 August 1998 based on the official release date of the calendar year 1998 (CY 98) Reserve Component Major Promotion Board. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the provisions of law also state that an officer will be considered for promotion well in advance so that, if recommended, he would be promoted on or before the date that he completes the maximum years of service, which in the applicant’s case is 7 years. That all of the...