Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | ||
Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his promotion to first sergeant/E-8 (1SG/E-8) be restored.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was contacted by his unit personnel officials in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) in December 1996, and informed that he was first on the list for promotion to the grade of E-8. He was further advised that the 1SG of one of the batteries had been killed and he was asked if he would accept that position. At that time, a request for his promotion along with a request for a ruling on the validity of his Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) completion was forwarded to the 29th Division.
3. The applicant states that on 14 February 1997, orders were published that authorized his promotion to 1SG/E-8 and that transferred him to the 1SG/E-8 position in B Battery, Franklin, Virginia. On 14 March 1997, orders were published revoking his promotion based on his not having proper ANCOC credit. He claims that at this point, he provided the forms showing that he completed the ANCOC by correspondence and an electronic message from Fort Eustis, Virginia verifying that the correspondence course was accepted as valid course completion by the Army.
4. The applicant further indicates that he signed his promotion worksheet on
31 October 1996, and that unit rating schemes and alert rosters show he was still performing 1SG duties as of 11 August 1997. He states that he attended the ANCOC at Fort Indian Town Gap, Pennsylvania from 14 September through
26 September 1998 in order to satisfy the ANCOC requirement; however, upon his completion of this course, he was informed that it would not count until the next promotion list. He also indicates that leave and earnings statements (LESs) on file also confirm that he was paid as a 1SG/E-8 from February through April 1997.
5. In support of his application, the applicant provides the 31 attachments listed on the enclosed facts list.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. As of the date of his application to this Board, the applicant was still serving as a member of the VAARNG.
2. On 19 December 1996, the Office of the Adjutant General (OTAG), VAARNG, published the 1996 E-8 promotion list. The applicant’s name was listed first
(755 points) among those on the list in the military occupational specialty 16Z.
3. On 26 December 1996, a promotion request pertaining to the applicant was forwarded to the OTAG, VAARNG. It indicated that the applicant was then number one on the promotion list, and had agreed to accept a vacant 1SG position. Included in this request was an Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) that showed the applicant completed the ANCOC by correspondence course on 3 February 1987. However, the promotion request also asked that a determination be made regarding the applicant’s ANCOC correspondence course completion and whether it was creditable for promotion purposes.
4. On 14 February 1997, Orders Number 031-080 were published by the OTAG, VAARNG. These orders authorized the applicant’s promotion to E-8 and his assignment to the 1SG position of Battery B, 111th Air Defense Artillery, effective 7 February 1997.
5. On 14 March 1997, Orders Number 050-056 were published by the OTAG, VAARNG. These orders revoked the portion of Orders Number 031-081 that pertained to the applicant’s transfer to the 1SG position of Battery B, 111th Air Defense Artillery, and his promotion to E-8. The basis for the revocation was a determination that the applicant’s completion of the ANCOC by correspondence course did not satisfy the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) requirement for promotion.
6. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB). It states that they recommend approval of the applicant’s request based on the fact that he completed the ANCOC by correspondence within the time prescribed. As a result, the course should have satisfied the NCOES promotion requirement that was the basis for the revocation of the applicant’s promotion. On 23 January 2004, the applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given
10 days to provide any response. To date, he has failed to reply.
7. The applicant provides a chronology of the events surrounding the promotion process that was prepared by his unit personnel technician. This sequence indicates that the basis for the revocation of the applicant’s promotion was an Inspector General (IG) investigation of a complaint, which indicated the applicant had not satisfied the NCOES requirement for promotion. The revocation action was accomplished without investigation or clarification of the issue with the applicant’s command. The applicant’s command was informed that the governing regulation did not allow promotion credit for correspondence course completion of the ANCOC. The applicant’s command made another effort to resolve this issue on 21 March 1997, when it was requested that the ANCOC credit issue be readdressed based on Army guidance that allowed credit for correspondence course completion. However, this request was never addressed by higher headquarters.
8. Department of the Army (DA) (DAMO-TRI) message 101819Z, October 1986, Subject: ANCOC/BNCOC Credit, established the deadline for the completion of the ANCOC/BNCOC through ACCP for Resident Course Credit as 1 June 1987.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s claim that his promotion revocation was unjust was carefully considered and it was found to have merit. DA policy established that ANCOC resident course credit would be granted for completion of the ANCOC by correspondence course on or before 1 June 1987. As evidenced by the NGB advisory opinion, this policy extended to the ARNG.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant completed the ANCOC by correspondence course on 3 February 1987. Thus, he should have received resident course credit for this course for promotion purposes. Given the applicant’s ANCOC completion satisfied the Army NCOES promotion requirement and based on his being otherwise qualified for promotion at the time, it is clear that the revocation of his promotion was inappropriate and unjust.
3. In view of the facts of this case, it would now be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record by showing he was promoted to 1SG/E-8 on 7 February 1997, and that he has held and satisfactorily served in that grade through the present date. Further, the applicant should be provided any back pay and allowances that are due as a result of this correction.
BOARD VOTE:
_RTD___ __JS___ __LB ____ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2003088745 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 2004/02/10 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. 1023 | 106.0010 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071512C070402
As a result of his request not to be further considered for attendance at the ANCOC and this DA action to remove his name from the promotion list, the applicant’s conditional promotion to SFC/E-7 was revoked and de-facto status was granted him for the period 1 November 1996 through 25 October 1999. He also indicated that because the applicant’s promotion was conditioned on completion of a required course, his academic failure of this course and his later request to no longer be considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071361C070402
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was selected for and conditionally promoted to SFC/E-7 and scheduled to attend the ANCOC on 16 October 2001. On 27 February 2002, the reinstatement panel convened and denied his request for the reinstatement of his promotion. It also shows that this panel had before it all matters of mitigation, extenuation, and the declared support of the applicant’s chain of command for his reinstatement request at the time it determined that promotion reinstatement...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019517
The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 1998 and on 11 August 1998, his promotion was unjustly revoked. Notwithstanding the NGB advisory opinion, evidence shows that the applicant did not meet the NCOES requirement for promotion to SFC as an AGR Soldier at the time he entered the AGR Program or at any time thereafter. When he entered the AGR Program in 1985 he was required to have completed either AC-ANCOC or both the RC Advanced Course...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078668C070215
A fifth measurement was taken by the unit weight control NCO on 28 February 2001, which had resulted in a determination that the applicant met the body fat standard. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was denied attendance at the ANCOC based on his being under a FLAG action, as a result of his being in an overweight status on 4 January 2001, the scheduled date of his ANCOC class. Also, on 28 February 2001, when the unit weight control NCO determined he met the weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077430C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that he was declared a no-show for attendance at a scheduled ANCOC class in May 2001, and was subsequently administratively removed from the SFC/E-7 promotion and ANCOC attendance lists as a result. Order Number 144-4, dated 24 May 2001, published by PERSCOM, revoked the applicant’s promotion to SFC/E-7, and the Chief, Enlisted Promotions Branch, PERSCOM, notified the commander, Fort Knox, that the applicant’s name was administratively removed from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077431C070215
On 15 August 1997, the US Army Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified the applicant that based on AR 600-8-19, paragraph 4-18 as superseded by Interim Change 101, his name had been administratively removed from the list and his promotion to SFC revoked. 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: When the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080679C070215
In February 2002, the applicant submitted a request asking that he be reinstated on the promotion list and that he be scheduled to attend the ANCOC. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the effective date and date of rank of his promotion to SFC/E-7 should be restored to 8 January 2000, because the revocation of this promotion was based on an unverified and flawed body fat measurement that resulted in his unjustly being denied enrollment in the ANCOC, and it finds this claim has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072707C070403
PERSCOM officials indicate that the applicant was conditionally promoted on 14 October 1999, and that this promotion was later revoked based on his failure to attend a scheduled ANCOC class due to a FLAG action based on his failure of a record APFT. The Army’s ANCOC general attendance policy outlined by the PERSCOM NCOES branch states, in pertinent part, that is currently no deadline in determining when the soldier must attend ANCOC. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011887C070206
His promotion orders specified in the additional instructions that the promotion was awarded with the condition that the applicant must be enrolled in and successfully complete the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) course required for the grade to which promoted. In November 2000, the applicant submitted a request to retain his rank and to be given an opportunity to attend ANCOC Phase I. Notwithstanding that conditional promotions were suspended approximately 5 months after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03092989C070212
The applicant provides – A senior civilian at Fort Eustis also supported her request and stated that he had adjusted the applicant's schedule to allow her an opportunity to prepare herself to successfully complete ANCOC. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned by scheduling the applicant for attendance at the next available ANCOC, and if successfully completed, promoting her to sergeant first class effective and with a date of...