| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | ||
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the removal of Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) code D (Declinee) from her record, reinstatement to the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA) Selection List, and the opportunity to attend the Sergeants Major Course (SMC) at the USASMA.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was inappropriately removed from the 2000 Command Sergeant Major (CSM), Sergeant Major (SGM), SMC list. She claims that the initiator of the removal action was not in her chain of command on the date removal was requested. She claims that she had signed out of the unit on 1 July 2001, prior to the date the removal action was initiated. She also states that she was never notified of the action or its consequences in writing. She states that she was never afforded the opportunity to submit matters in rebuttal, and the action was not approved by the officer exercising general court-martial authority over her. In support of her request, she submits a copy of a leave form (DA Form 31), Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders, a 2 August 2001 Memorandum, Subject: Removal from USASMA Selection List, and a Memorandum, dated 3 August 2001, Subject: CY 00 CSM/SGM/SMC USASMC Select Removal Action.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
As of the date of his application, the applicant was serving on active duty in Europe as a Master Sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8).
On 30 June 2001, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) was prepared on the applicant by the Commanding General (CG), Third United States Army (TUSA), United States Army Forces Central Command (CENTCOM),
Fort McPherson, Georgia. The GOMOR was the result of the applicant submitting a fraudulent Temporary Duty (TDY) voucher and processing several fraudulent vouchers while she was serving as the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the Camp Doha Finance Office in Kuwait.
On 1 July 2001, the applicant prepared a rebuttal to the GOMOR and requested that it be filed locally in her Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) rather than in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). In this rebuttal, the applicant stated that she was not refuting the numerous findings articulated in the GOMOR, and that she took full responsibility for her mistakes.
On 19 July 2001, the CG TUSA, after considering the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s misconduct as described in the GOMOR, and the applicant’s response, directed that the GOMOR be filed in her OMPF. On 2 August 2001, the CG requested that the applicant be removed from the USASMA list based on misconduct articulated in the GOMOR.
On 3 August 2001, the Chief, NCOES Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), officially removed the applicant from the USASMA selection list based on the misconduct outlined in the GOMOR. Accordingly, the applicant was placed in a Declinee status, and NCOES Code D was entered in her record.
The applicant provides a copy of a DA Form 31, dated 1 July 2001, which shows that she signed out of her unit at Camp Doha, Kuwait, on PCS leave, on 1 July 2001.
Army Regulation 600-89 prescribes the data code structures used to report and record personnel data via the automated Personnel Information System (PERSINS). Code Number 49 pertains to noncommissioned officer education. It states that the code is used to report the highest Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) professional development level attained. Code D is used to identify a USASMA declination.
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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the NCOES code D currently recorded in her record should be removed because the individual that initiated the action no longer exercised general court-martial convening authority over her when the removal action was initiated. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant received a GOMOR on
30 June 2001, for offenses that she admitted to committing. Although the filing determination and request to have her removed from the USASMA list were not actually submitted until after she had departed the command, this does not change the validity of the actions being processed. The initial GOMOR on which all subsequent actions were based was in fact prepared and presented to the applicant in writing prior to her departure from the command.
3. The request to have her removed from the USASMA list was carefully considered and approved by the proper Department of the Army authority, and her record was updated with the appropriate NCOES code D accordingly. The Board finds no error or injustice related to this action, and it concludes it was appropriate based on the misconduct documented in the GOMOR.
4. 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
__MKP__ __REB__ __FCJ _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090471 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 1037 | 118.0100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022398
A memorandum from the commandant of the USASMA, dated 28 April 2008, shows a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) was prepared showing the applicant failed to achieve course standards and was dismissed from Phase I, NR-SMC effective 28 April 2008. It states that operational deferments will only be granted for unit deployments. There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he requested a course deferment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018049
The advisory official stated the following: * the applicant was placed on the PPRL, which is managed by the servicing Regional Support Command (RSC) * as vacant positions are reported, the RSC identifies the first Soldier on the PPRL who meets the reported requirements of the position within the elected commuting distance * in no case will promotions be made to pay grade E-7 and above for Soldiers who are in an over-strength status * Soldiers who have not been promoted within 2 years from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012645
The applicant provides: * medical document * DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) * DA Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) * DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record Enlisted) * permanent physical profiling memorandum * reassignment orders and revocation of reassignment orders * personal statement * Medical Report and Functional Capacity * Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Process * Summary of Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)/Medical Retention Board (MMRB)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007602
In part, the article included the following allegations: a. A review of his record shows the GOMOR is filed in the performance section of his AMHRR. c. Documents in the restricted section are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; show corrections to other parts of the AMHRR; record investigation reports and appellate actions; and protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021347
The USAR boards convened August 2009 and January 2010. c. The advisory official's statement implies that the applicant's promotion packet, along with the APFT, was not boarded because he had not attended the SMC before turning age 55. To imply that a Soldier cannot attend or complete the SMC because of being age 55 should be a concern for the U.S. Army especially when there is a regulation which states that a Soldier may continue his duties to the military until age 60, or with a waiver to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003662C070205
However, the WAARNG had discharge orders transferring him to the IRR. Yet, their State had discharge orders transferring him to the IRR. The evidence shows the applicant had been given two deferments for attendance of Phase II of the USASMA.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005094C071029
The applicant states that on 2 March 2007, she was notified that her selection for promotion by the STAB was in error, and based on the timing of her reclassification, she was not eligible for promotion and as a result, her name was being removed from the promotion list and she received orders revoking her SGM promotion. As a result, she submitted a request for a STAB based on being considered in the wrong MOS, and this request was approved by HRC, which resulted in her subsequent selection...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067670C070402
He contends that the review board did not have the original copy of his work to compare with his resources and therefore, relied on insufficient evidence when ordering his dismissal for plagiarism. In item 16 (Comments), the preparing official indicated that the applicant was dismissed from the USASMC for misconduct for plagiarism under the provisions of Army Regulation 351-1 (Individual Military Education and Training), paragraph 5-30. By a memorandum dated 12 July 2001, the U.S. Total...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017503C070206
On 7 April 2004, the Chief, Command Sergeant Major/Sergeant Major (CSM/SGM) Branch notified the Commander of the 6th Battalion, 52nd Air Defense Artillery that the Department of the Army Enlisted Standby Advisory Board which adjourned on 20 February 2004, recommended removal of the applicant from the promotion list to sergeant major. The Chief, CSM/SGM Branch also stated that the Director of Military Personnel Policy, Army G-1 approved the Board's recommendation on 10 March 2004. Evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007392
The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for promotion to SGM/E-9 with back pay to the date he was first denied promotion. Under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-19, the applicant was not eligible for consideration for promotion because he had not completed the SMC upon reaching age 55. The evidence of record shows the applicant was erroneously considered and selected for promotion and not properly removed from the PPRL; however, there is no evidence showing...