| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests the transfer of a DA Form 1059 dated 25 June 1999, promotion orders dated 27 September 2001 and Board proceedings dated 3 January 2003 be transferred to the Restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he has previously won his appeal before the Board and requests that his records be corrected by transferring the requested documents to the Restricted fiche of his OMPF in order that his chances for selection to the pay grade of E-8 will not be hindered.
3. The applicant provides copies of the documents he requests to be transferred.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 December 1986 for a period of 3 years and has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 November 1994.
2. On 12 February 1999, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) published orders number 43-62, which announced that the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7, effective 1 March 1999. The orders also direct that the applicant be promoted conditional on his completion of the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).
3. On 25 June 1999, a DA Form 1056 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)) was prepared to reflect that the applicant had failed to achieve course standards of the ANCOC by failing to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) during the period of 17 June to 25 June 1999. The applicant was returned to his unit and on 20 July 1999, the PERSCOM notified the applicant that he had been removed from the Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection List for failure of the ANCOC.
4. On 11 December 2000, the Inspector General (IG) of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) informed the applicant that an investigation had concluded that he had been improperly denied the opportunity to execute wide arm pushups during his APFT, that he had been denied due process rights to appeal his ANCOC dismissal and that he should apply to the PERSCOM to appeal his removal from the promotion selection list.
5. The applicant applied to the PERSCOM for reinstatement and on 28 February 2001, the PERSCOM advised him that he would be reinstated to the promotion selection list and scheduled for attendance at the ANCOC as soon as practical. He was advised to apply to this Board for retroactive promotion to the pay grade of E-7. He submitted his application to the Board on 13 June 2001, requesting that his DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 be established as 1 March 1999, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.
6. The applicant completed the course requirements of the ANCOC on 20 September 2001 and was named to the commandant's list based on academic achievements. Orders were published on 27 September 2001, by the PERSCOM, which promoted the applicant to the pay grade of E-7, effective 25 May 2001.
7. On 6 December 2001, the Board voted unanimously to approve the applicant's request and directed that his records be corrected accordingly. However, a review of the applicant's OMPF shows that both of his promotion orders are still present on his performance fiche.
8. On 3 January 2002, the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) dispatched a memorandum to the applicant informing him of the Board's decision in his case and informing him that his records had been corrected accordingly. This memorandum is filed on his service continuation fiche.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-104 serves as the authority for the filing of documents in the OMPF. It provides, in pertinent part, that unless specifically directed by the Board, all Board actions will be filed on the Restricted fiche of the OMPF.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Inasmuch as an IG investigation has revealed that the applicant was improperly dismissed from the ANCOC and subsequently removed from the promotion selection list, any documents that resulted from that action should become null and void. Accordingly, his AER dated 25 June 1999 should be transferred to his Restricted fiche.
2. Likewise, his records should reflect his original promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and should not contain any other promotion orders that may lend confusion at a future date as to his date of rank, without having to refer to his Restricted fiche. Therefore, his records should be corrected to reflect only one promotion to the pay grade of E-7, effective 1 March 1999.
3. The evidence of record also shows that a memorandum from the EREC dated 3 January 2002, explaining the actions of the Board in his case is present on the service computation fiche of his OMPF. While the memorandum offers no derogatory connotations, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer that document to the Restricted fiche of his OMPF to avoid any unnecessary confusion.
BOARD VOTE:
YM__ __LEM___ __RO____ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087846 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/11/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.134.0000 | 328/REM DER INFO |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074854C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that all documents relating to his request for correction/removal from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period February 1994 through January 1995 be removed from the restricted portion (R-Fiche) of his OMPF; that the NCOERs on file in his record dating from 1 July 1996 be corrected to reflect service in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7, (SFC/E-7), vice staff sergeant/E-6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605941C070209
A 20 November 1990 AER from the software analyst, MOS 74F, BNCOC at Fort Gordon, Georgia, shows that she was administratively released from the course because she failed written and hands-on portion [of the course], with a recommendation that she be allowed to work in her MOS before attending the course again. She stated, in effect, that because of overstrength in MOS 74F at Fort Gordon, she did not have the opportunity to work in that MOS, and coupled with the fact that she was recently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100689C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the notification of his removal from the promotion selection list dated 26 June 2001 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). This memorandum was filed in the applicant's P- fiche and not in the R-fiche, as it should have been. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: transferring the Memorandum from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, which notified...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077532C070215
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. The applicant requests that all documents related to the revocation of his promotion to the pay grade of E-7 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant’s military records show that on 24 July 1998, the applicant's name was released as a selectee for promotion to the pay grade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012469C070206
He appealed the AER to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB), which resulted in the ESRB finding the AER was in error and removing the AER from his records. The applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 June 2002 conditional upon his successfully completing ANCOC. The applicant appealed the AER and the ESRB granted his appeal to remove the AER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061235C070421
The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC and to the pay grade of E-7. A staff member of the Board also reviewed similar cases that have been reviewed by the Board and finds that in all such cases, the Board supported the PERSCOM decision to promote individuals who had been reinstated after they completed the ANCOC; however, it was always with a retroactive DOR (to the date they were originally promoted), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances (minus the de facto...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016778
The applicant requests, in effect, that the memorandum, subject: Administrative Removal from the Promotion Selection List, dated 22 December 1997, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). He states that he did not attend ANCOC and a memorandum was placed in his OMPF. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring the memorandum, subject: Administrative Removal from the Promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084312C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Memorandum, dated 21 May 1997, Subject: Declination of Consideration for Promotion be removed from his Service Fiche, General Administrative Data Section, of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) to his Restricted Fiche of his OMPF. The applicant states that he did not personally complete a promotion packet in the first place and should not have had to write a "Declination of Promotion letter." A review of the applicant’s OMPF, General...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000318C070208
The applicant requests that a record of nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) and a service school academic evaluation report (AER) be expunged from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by certain agencies, to include the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). There is no injustice in maintaining the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058226C070421
He further states that had his command followed the proper procedures, he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-7 conditionally and that once it was determined that his overweight condition was the result of a medical condition, he would have been allowed to retain his promotion until he could attend the ANCOC. Inasmuch as the Army has a reason for maintaining records of circumstances such as the applicant’s and he has failed to show they are in error, there is no basis to grant...