| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reinstated in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and promoted to Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was on the promotion list in both 1998 and 1999 and in both instances he was not promoted. Each time the soldier below him on the list was promoted. He was never removed from the list in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-200. He was fully eligible and had no adverse flagging actions. He was forced to retired with 24 years of service due to his grade.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records are not available. Information contained herein was obtained from evidence provided by the applicant: Delaware ARNG (DEARNG) MSG Promotion List dated 4 August 1998; DEARNG MSG Promotion List dated 6 August 1999; the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record Part II); a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report); four DA Forms 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard); a memorandum dated 16 November 1999 awarding the applicant the Army National Guard Senior Recruiter Badge; and an extract from chapter 11, National Guard Regulation 600-200.
After having had prior service (with an initial entry date of on or about 8 May 1978), the applicant enlisted in the DEARNG on or about 30 April 1982. He was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 on 7 February 1991. He was awarded primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 79T (Recruiting/Retention Noncommissioned Officer) on or about 12 January 1998. He completed the ARNG 79T Basic Course on 20 February 1998.
The DEARNG MSG promotion list dated 4 August 1998 shows that eight SFCs were on the MSG promotion list in career progression MOS 79T. The applicant was third on the list. Two SFCs with a primary MOS of 79T4H (instructor-qualified) had more points than he did. SFC Da___ was fourth on the list, followed by SFC P___, SFC W___, SFC Do___, and SFC J___.
The DEARNG MSG promotion list dated 6 August 1999 shows that seven SFCs were on the MSG promotion list in career progression MOS 79T. The applicant was again third on the list with the same two SFCs ahead of him. SFC Da___ and SFC J___ were no longer on the list. The applicant was followed on this list by SFC S___ (a new name), SFC W___, SFC P___, and SFC Do___.
The applicant was apparently discharged from the ARNG and transferred to the Retired Reserve around 30 September 2002.
National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes policies and procedures for the management of ARNG enlisted soldiers in several functional areas including promotion. It states that to be eligible for promotion a soldier must: (1) be in a promotable status; (2) be participating satisfactorily in the active ARNG in the next lower grade; (3) have completed the time in grade and time in service criteria; (4) have a high school diploma or equivalent or higher civilian educational level and successfully complete the required military education; and (5) be qualified in the career progression MOS for the position into which assigned and promoted. It also states that some positions on manning documents identify additional skills. Unless a soldier cannot perform the duties of the position due to a lack of special qualifications identifier or additional skill identifier, such as in certain airborne or special forces positions, this training is not a criterion in determining MOS qualification for promotion.
National Guard Regulation 600-200 further states that the promotion selection process establishes the means to consider all eligible soldiers and select the best qualified soldiers for promotion. States will conduct one board and publish a promotion list for each rank approximately once each year. The selection objective will list in promotion sequence the best-qualified soldiers who will be assigned to current and projected vacancies in higher graded positions. The promotion list is neither a permanent standing list nor an order of merit list. Each list published by the State Adjutant General is a new list and is intended to remain valid until exhausted, or a subsequent list supersedes it approximately one year later. If not assigned and promoted from the old list before it expires, the soldiers sequence on the new list will be determined solely by their ranking with their contemporaries; they will not be placed at the top of the list. If soldiers are eligible and available for the assignment, they will be assigned and promoted provided they have met all other requirements for the 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. It is noted that the SFC Da___, who ranked just below the applicant on the 1998 MSG promotion list, did not appear on the 1999 MSG promotion list; however, there is no evidence to show that SFC Da___ was promoted into a position that the applicant otherwise qualified for, thereby depriving the applicant of an opportunity for promotion. It is also noted that two SFCs who ranked higher than the applicant in career progression MSO 79T on the 1998 MSG promotion list were also still listed on the 1999 MSG promotion list.
3. The applicant does not explain why he believes he should have been removed from the promotion list.
4. With the limited records available, the applicant's exact status while he was in the ARNG cannot be determined. It cannot be determined why he was separated (presumably transferred to the Retired Reserve) or whether or not he was "forced" to retire with 24 years of service due to his grade contrary to any policy.
5. 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
__jns___ __sp____ __sac___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087534 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031216 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | 110.03 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009448
The applicant states: a. He was number 1 on the promotion list but on 16 October 2010 the AGR manager selected the number 2 Soldier on the promotion list to fill a MSG vacancy as he (the applicant) did not have 14 years of AFS. The evidence of record shows that although the applicant was number 1 on the MSG promotion list on 16 October 2010 and met the regulatory requirements in AR 600-8-19 for promotion the COARNG selected the Soldier who was number 2 on the promotion list for promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020620
f. He requested a formal investigation to look into how the ARNG Title 10 boards are managed and conducted. The records contain two parts: the first part addressed his complaint to his Member of Congress requesting a formal investigation into the FY12 and FY13 SGM promotion boards being mismanaged and not conducted properly, and the second part addressed his complaint that there were no promotions for the 79T career field, despite vacancies, and the personnel reductions were based on a FY14...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007602C070208
However, as a result of investigating a complaint related to this issue, the first person on the list was later promoted with a back-dated date of rank because he had not been formally informed or counseled that he was being denied the promotion as required by NGR 600-200, paragraph 11-38. h. Exhibit G is a Memorandum, Subject: ABCMR Proceedings (Docket Number AR2001065548) pertinent to the Soldier's [not the applicant's] situation described in Exhibit F above, which was prepared by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020266
The applicant requests reinstatement to the Enlisted Promotion System (EPS) Master Sergeant (MSG) Promotion List and promotion to MSG. The applicant states: * he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired) from the Delaware Army National Guard (DEARNG) in 1995 with 21 years of service as a sergeant first class SFC/E-7 * he had been on the promotion list for the last 7 years * he was told that he did not have the required time remaining for promotion and that he needed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014553
The applicant additionally provided: a. page 637, unit page number 29, of the PRARNG Element, JFHQ, UMR, dated 1 July 2006, that shows he was assigned as excess (overstrength) in his primary MOS 15P4O to paragraph/line 230C/06, position code MOS 15Z5O, duty position MOS 15Z5O; b. page 648, unit page number 40, of the PRARNG Element, JFHQ, UMR, dated 1 July 2006, that shows SGM C____ O. S____-Y____ was assigned in his primary MOS 15Z5O to paragraph/line 230C/06, position code MOS 15Z5O, duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019668
BOARD DATE: 5 August 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019668 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Therein, he stated the 2002 TPL for AGR 75H5O indicated he had declined promotion to MSG. The Soldier who accepted that position was promoted to MSG on 8 August 2002 as an AGR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011646
He was also informed that since he was on the promotion list at the time he was referred to the PDES, he would be promoted to the recommended grade upon retirement. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was advanced on the retired list to the rank of SGM (E-9) or MSG (E-8) because after having back surgery and being referred for MEB/PEB processing he was selected for promotion to MSG (E-8) in both 2010 and 2011; however, his physical profile precluded him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058741C070421
The applicant’s military record shows that he was a member of the Army National Guard (ARNG) of Puerto Rico and that he served on active duty in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status from 4 August 1981 through 31 March 1999, at which time he was REFRAD for the purpose of retirement. Paragraph 12-3b(1) contains the general provisions of law governing retirement and it states in pertinent part, that ARNG soldiers serving on active duty at the time of their retirement, in a grade lower than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008150
On 26 March 2002, by memorandum, the applicant requested to appear before a Reduction Board. b. Paragraph 7-1b states the Enlisted Promotion System is designed to help fill authorized enlisted vacancies in the NCO grades with the best qualified Soldiers who have demonstrated the potential to serve at the next higher grade. Having been flagged through February 2010 and having submitted a request for retirement, it is not likely he would have been recommended for promotion to SGM.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026207
On 24 December 2002, Headquarters, 78th Division, Edison, NJ, published Orders 02-358-00003 ordering the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR, effective 30 November 2002, after having achieved maximum authorized years of service as a MSG/E-8 (32 years). The applicant was promoted to CSM on 1 December 1997 but his orders were revoked and he received new orders on 3 March 1998 promoting him to SGM/E-9 contingent upon completion of Sergeant Major's Course with 2 years. ...