| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, promotion reconsideration to master sergeant/sergeant major (MSG/SGM) by a standby advisory board (STAB).
APPLICANT STATES: That his DA Form 2 and 2-1 that were forwarded to him for his review/signature were not considered by the promotion board. From July 2001 until February 2002 his promotion packet was lost; therefore, an unsigned DA Form 2 and 2-1 were forwarded to the board. His also states that his most current non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period October 2000 through April 2001 was not considered by the promotion board. In support of his application he submits copies of the announcement for the calendar year 2001 Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) MSG/SGM promotion board, his personal request for a STAB and the response from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the time of his non-selection for promotion to MSG by the 2001 Reserve Components Selection Board, the applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-7 in the AGR program as a Personnel Management NCO.
On 3 September 2002, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM advised the applicant that after careful review of his record, his request for a STAB was not favorably considered. In accordance with Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 4-18e (10), the NCOER for the period covering October 2000 through April 2001 was not received and processed by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) prior to the convening date of the 2001 MSG board. Therefore, in accordance with Army 140-158, paragraph 4-18d there was no material error.
On 22 September 2002, The Inspector General of AR-PERSCOM advised the applicant that his case had been reviewed and it was concluded that he did receive due process. His only recourse to contest the disapproval for a STAB was the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.
On 24 September 2002, the applicant replied to the 3 September 2002 memorandum from PERSCOM. The applicant stated that although his rating officials submitted his NCOER late, it was forwarded in enough time to be processed, returned to the rating officials, corrected, and returned by the rating officials for further processing. This is where he views a material error exists in his promotion file.
On 24 September 2002, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM, advised the applicant that the Evaluations Branch records show that
his NCOER for the period in question was received and processed on 17 April 2002. The regulation is clear and does not grant any loopholes for requesting a STAB based on the rater not being timely in completing soldier’s actions.
On 28 September 2002, the applicant submitted an IG action request. On 9 October 2002, the Office of the IG acknowledged receipt of his request and advised an inquiry into the matter he presented had been initiated and upon completion he would be informed of the results. The applicant did not submit any documentation on the results of this inquiry.
He was promoted to MSG with a promotion effective date and date of rank of 1 April 2003.
Army Regulation 140-158, prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the classification, promotion, reduction, and grade restoration of enlisted soldiers in the Army Reserve. Chapter 4-18(d) of this regulation specifies that the Commander, PERSCOM (TAPC-MSL) will determine if material error existed in a soldier’s records when the selection board reviewed the file. It must be presumed that a material error in the file may have contributed to non-selection. An error is material when, in the judgment of a mature individual familiar with selection board proceedings, a reasonable chance exists that had the error not existed, the soldier may have been selected. Sometimes, a long-standing error once corrected qualified the soldier for reconsideration based on the criteria of several boards.
The regulation further provides that within 1 year of notification of the board results, soldiers not recommended for promotion may request reconsideration by a STAB. This is if they believe their record contained a material error when it was considered.
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, it is concluded:
1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to promotion reconsideration to MSG/SGM by a STAB. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board notes his contentions; however, the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to MSG/SGM in accordance with pertinent regulations. The Board also notes that after a review of the applicant’s records he is not entitled to promotion consideration by a STAB. Pertinent regulations provide for STAB consideration within 1 year of notification of the board results. Soldiers must request reconsideration if they believe their records contained a material error when it was considered.
3. His records were complete and without material error when reviewed by the 2001 promotion selection board. A review of the Evaluations Branch records show that his NCOER for the period in question was received and processed on 17 April 2002, subsequent to the 2001 RCSB; however, pertinent regulations do not provide for promotion reconsideration by a STAB based on the rater not being timely in completing soldier’s actions.
4. 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.
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
__FCJ__ __WDP__ __MMH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087745 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031021 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212
The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008580
The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 16 June 1980 and his date of birth (DOB) is recorded as 18 June 1948. However, the message that announced that board specifically stated that the eligibility criteria for appointment as TPU CSM included, if the Soldier was a MSG with a PEBD of 1 March 1972 and later (the applicant's PEBD was 16 June 1974) and with a date of rank of 6 June 2001 and earlier (the applicant's date of rank was 16 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005924C070206
He based his request on the fact that two of the NCOs selected in his MOS were selected even through they were not graduates of the USASMA, and because he believed two of the promotion board members were biased against his selection. This RC promotion official states that promotion selection boards are governed by Army regulatory policy, and members are selected for their maturity, judgment and freedom from bias. While the applicant clearly believes he is better qualified than the Soldiers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012079
Her eligibility data is as follows: * USASMC graduate * BASD of 30 June 1986 * DOB of 8 September 1956 d. Based upon the criteria listed in MILPER Message Number 12-100 and Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 4-2a, she met the announced DOR, BASD, and other eligibility criteria prescribed by HRC for the FY2012 AGR SGM Selection and Training Board and should have been provided a promotion board file for consideration for promotion to SGM. The applicant claims she was denied promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013263
The evidence of record shows the governing Army regulation provides that 75 days are allowed for processing annual NCOERs after the Thru date. The evidence of record shows the applicant was due a mandatory annual report with a Thru date of 30 July 2009. The evidence of record shows that an NCOER received after the specified cut-off date that does not get posted to the board file will not be a basis for STAB consideration.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004384
The applicant requests reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision denying him a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for promotion consideration to master sergeant (MSG)/pay grade E-8 based on material error. The applicant states he contacted his rating chain concerning the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) with a Thru date of 30 July 2009. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 7 January 2010, Subject: Request STAB Reconsideration,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065510C070421
It also mandates that the promotion authority establish the zones of consideration for promotion, announce the convening of the promotion selection board, and produce the memorandum of instructions to the promotion board members. The Board notes the contentions of the applicant that he should be granted a waiver of the zone of consideration age requirement established by the promotion authority and that his records should be placed before a STAB using the promotion criteria established for...
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 | CY2011 | 20110012030
Requests received after 24 September 2010 will be processed in the order received but may not appear before the board; (8) paragraph 9b states, "In order to guarantee processing prior to board, all mandatory or optional NCOER's must be received, error free, in the Evaluation Reports Branch, HRC, not later than by close of business on 1 October 2010"; e. an undated ATRRS Request for Cancellation/Substitution Form showing his 1SG Course was cancelled because of his flag; f. an email from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026346
b. paragraph 543 states enlisted standby advisory boards will consider records of Soldiers on whom derogatory information has been properly substantiated, which may warrant removal from a selection list. c. paragraph 5-35 states a Soldier removed from a promotion selection list and later considered exonerated will be reinstated on the promotion selection list. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * Setting...