Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004644C070208
Original file (20040004644C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           15 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004644


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathan K. Rost              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his rank of Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8 be
restored.

2.  The applicant states that his unit did not take his 900-mile weekend
drill commute or his reason for hardship into consideration.  He was
promoted to MSG and transferred to the 143d Transportation Command, which
is located in Orlando, FL.  In the interim, he also received some
additional job responsibilities in his civilian job which made his ability
to commute from Memphis, TN to Orlando, FL more difficult.

3.  The applicant states that, upon his arrival at the unit, he asked his
supervisor if he could drill in Florida and from time to time also perform
drill at his previous reserve unit.  He was told, in effect, "no."  He then
asked if he could transfer to a unit closer to his home and again he was
refused.  He was told the only way he would be released from his unit would
be to submit a letter stating he refused the promotion to MSG.  He
requested an exception to Army Regulation 140-158 under the hardship
condition.  That request was also denied and the unit began sending him
Unsatisfactory Performance letters.  He received a call from his unit and
was told the Command decided to reduce him to the rank of Sergeant First
Class (SFC), E-7 and send him to the Inactive Ready Reserve.  On 1 August
2003, he received a set of retirement orders and also a set of orders
reducing him to SFC.

4.  The applicant states that he strongly feels that the 143d
Transportation Command ended his military career in a very unprofessional
manner.  His request to be transferred to a local unit and retain the rank
of MSG was never addressed.  They decided to take his career into their own
hands and penalize him for not being able to commute to Florida.

5.  The applicant provides a Privacy Release Form to his Congressman; a
letter from him to MSG S___ dated 18 August 2003; a DA Form 4187 (Personnel
Action) dated 7 July 2003 with a memorandum dated 7 August 2003; two DA
Forms 4651-R (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment) dated
4 June 2003 and 7 July 2003; a memorandum dated 7 July 2003; a 7-page
email, last message dated 30 September 2003; orders assigning him to the
Retired Reserve dated 11 August 2003; reduction orders dated 6 August 2003;
promotion orders dated 27 February 2003; a letter from the 143d
Transportation Command Office of the Inspector General (IG) dated 18
September 2003; a certified mail receipt; and an extract from Army
Regulation 140-158.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant served in the Regular Army from 5 October 1981 through
      4 October 1985 when he was released from active duty and transferred
to a Troop Program Unit (TPU) located in Memphis, TN in the U. S. Army
Reserve (USAR).  He was promoted to SFC with a date of rank of 14 September
1995.

2.  The applicant had apparently requested promotion consideration for a
MSG position located in Orlando, FL.  He was promoted to MSG effective 1
March 2003 in military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative
Specialist).

3.  On 4 June 2003, the applicant requested transfer to a TPU located in
Huntsville, AL due to job conflict.

4.  On 7 July 2003, the applicant requested transfer to the Retired Reserve
due to hardship.  He had recently received additional job responsibilities
due to a promotion with his civilian employer and had found it extremely
difficult to maintain his active reserve status, his fulltime job, continue
his education as a college student, and fulfill his parenting
responsibilities.

5.  On 7 August 2003, the applicant requested the 81st Regional Support
Command review his request for exception to Army Regulation 140-158.  He
informed them that he requested the exception in regards to his promotion
yet he continued to receive Unsatisfactory Performance letters from his
unit.

6.  Orders dated 6 August 2003 reduced the applicant to SFC.  Orders dated
   11 August 2003 assigned him to the Retired Reserve.

7.  On 18 September 2003, the 143d Transportation Command IG informed
the applicant that a thorough inquiry revealed that his promotion had been
conditional upon serving at least 12 months in the duty position he was
promoted into.  The Command was willing to release him on his request with
his acknowledgment of a reduction in rank.  He was warned that he would be
credited with unsatisfactory performance if he chose not to accept
voluntary reduction and did not attend drills.  He had not fulfilled his
obligation and was not entitled to retain the rank of MSG in the Retired
Reserve.

8.  Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion,
  and Reduction) prescribes policy and procedures governing the
classification, advancement, promotion, reduction, and grade restoration of
applicable USAR Soldiers.

9.  The applicant provided an extract from section III (Promotion to
Sergeant and Staff Sergeant) of Army Regulation 140-158.  Paragraph 3-24.1
states that a Soldier who accepts a promotion voluntarily agrees to serve
in the duty position to which promoted, even if the promotion requires
reassignment to another TPU. Paragraph 3-24.1a states that the Soldier must
report for duty in the position to which promoted, comply with a
reassignment order, if issued, and serve at least 12 months in the duty
position before voluntary reassignment to another TPU.  An exception to
this policy may be granted by commanders possessing reassignment authority
where the Soldier has a change of residence or civilian employment, or
incurs an extreme hardship requiring such reassignment.

10.  Section IV (Promotion to SFC, MSG, and Sergeant Major) of Army
Regulation 140-158, paragraph 3-28c states that all Soldiers assigned to a
TPU who reside within a reasonable distance of a current or projected
position vacancy will be considered by the promotion selection board.
Soldiers who do not live within a reasonable distance of announced position
vacancies or projected vacancies may request consideration by the selection
board provided otherwise eligible.  If requesting consideration for
promotion to a position outside reasonable commuting distance, the Soldier
will provide a statement agreeing to serve in the position for a period of
not less than 12 months unless properly relieved by the commander, if
selected for promotion to that position.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant had been promoted to MSG to fill a MSG vacancy in a TPU
located in Orlando, FL.  Since Orlando was out of commuting distance from
his home in Memphis, TN, his promotion consideration had to have been made
at his specific request.  In addition, he had to have provided a statement
agreeing to serve in the MSG position for a period of not less than 12
months if selected for promotion to that position.

2.  Because the applicant discovered that he could not fulfill his drilling
responsibilities, he requested transfer, first, to a TPU closer to Memphis
and, second, to the Retired Reserve.  He requested he retain his rank of
MSG due to hardship as an exception to Army Regulation 140-158.  He
provided this Board an extract from Army Regulation 140-158 in support of
his request to retain his rank.

3.  However, the applicant provided the section in Army Regulation 140-158
that pertains to Sergeants and Staff Sergeants.  The section that pertains
to SFCs and MSGs does not provide for an exception due to hardship to the
12 months-of-service-in-the-new-unit requirement.  The applicant was
properly reduced to SFC when he was transferred to the Retired Reserve at
his own request.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rjw___  __jtm___  __jkr___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            __Raymond J. Wagner___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004644                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050315                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |133.05                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020344

    Original file (20120020344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests promotion consideration to the rank/pay grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8. The applicant states: * he was informed to maintain membership within his unit upon accepting a military technician (MT) position on 14 October 1984 * he was promoted to the rank/grade of SFC/E-7 upon his return from Operation Desert Storm * his promotion orders were revoked because the promotion was in another unit * he was later informed that an MT could be promoted in any unit within the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711643

    Original file (9711643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 March 1993 the 122 nd ARCOM requested that the 271 st Maintenance Company initiate action to remove the applicant from his ART position based on his reassignment from that unit [loss of dual status with the 271 st ]. The official from USARCOM repeated the information concerning the applicant’s assignment to the 271 st , acceptance and appointment as a CSM, assignment to the 810 th , imminent loss of his civilian position at the 271 st , withdrawal from the CSM program, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009470

    Original file (20130009470.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provided three UMRs, dated 2 June 2010, 24 August 2010, and 16 July 2011, which show: a. MSG CJ also stated that the applicant must complete the attached counseling and, by 27 May 2012, be reassigned to a valid position that meets COE and grade requirements or be subject to involuntary transfer to another unit, to the IRR, or elect retirement. (i) As a COE (MILTECH 365th) and in order to meet the senior grade overstrength guidance, she took a reduction in rank from SGM/E-9 to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008580

    Original file (20080008580.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 2002076779C070215

    Original file (2002076779C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the obligated period of service, the soldier will not apply for voluntary nondisability retirement unless the soldier is (a) eligible for retirement by completion 30 years or more active Federal service and (b) already eligible through prior service for a higher grade at retirement and (c) over 58 years of age. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025067

    Original file (20100025067.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100025067 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he was promoted to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 on 23 July 1987, was laterally appointed to 1SG/E-8, and served in that rank and pay grade until he accepted a voluntary reduction to sergeant first class (SFC)/ E-7 on 1 October 1991. The applicant provides copies of his 23 July 1987 promotion certificate, 12 February 1989 reenlistment contract, 26 April...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019302

    Original file (20130019302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for retroactive promotion to command sergeant major (CSM)/E-9 in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). The applicant provides: * Self-authored statement and 4 self-authored notes * List of qualifications and accomplishments * Two letters from the Sergeants Major Academy, dated 11 October 1991 and 17 October 1991 * Memorandum of request for promotion consideration to sergeant major (SGM), undated * Order Number 296-00053, dated 23...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004505

    Original file (20080004505.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that after completion of his active duty for the AGR (Active Guarded Reserve) in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7, his rank was supposed to be restored to MSG/E-8 for retirement. The applicant was ordered to active duty in the AGR in the rank of SFC with a reporting date of 24 September 2003, for 3 years, as a senior personnel sergeant. An email was provided by the Senior Human Resources Sergeant, 655th RSG, 316th Support Command, who informed this agency...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011342

    Original file (20060011342.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides a letter, dated 10 August 2005, from the Commanding General, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC); a letter, dated 27 March 2004, from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, USARC; three emails; a memorandum for record, dated 4 June 2006; a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 14 February 2005; a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report) covering the period December 2003 to November 2004; a reviewerÂ’s non-concurrence, dated 14...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019413

    Original file (20140019413.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * a memorandum, dated 8 July 2010, from HRC, subject: Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year Letter) * emails, dated 5-20 May 2011, concerning his assignment to the 224th MP Company, Phoenix, AZ * a memorandum for record (MFR), dated 15 October 2011, from Division West, Building, McGregor Range, Fort Bliss, TX * two DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 10 November 2011 * a DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment...