RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 October 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050012469
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. Curtis L. Greenway | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | |Member |
| |Ms. LaVerne V. Berry | |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 promotion to Sergeant First Class
(SFC), E-7 be reinstated with his original date of rank.
2. The applicant states the revocation of his promotion orders was based
solely on the Academic Evaluation Report (AER) given by the Fort Rucker, AL
Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy citing "fraudulent enrollment." His
orders were revoked in September 2002, citing "dismissed from ANCOC due to
disciplinary reasons." 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.
3. The applicant states the appeal process was lengthy and took nearly two
years to complete. The ESRB also noted "reconsideration for promotion is
not warranted because of this corrective action." They were not talking
about his promotion to SFC but rather that the action did not justify his
records going in front of a Standby Advisory Board for Master Sergeant.
The ESRB thought he was still an SFC as evident in the memorandum they sent
back to him addressing him as "SFC."
4. The applicant provides a memorandum from his battalion commander dated
8 February 2005; a memorandum from the U. S. Army Enlisted Records and
Evaluation Center dated 15 July 2004; a U. S. Total Army Personnel Command
(PERSCOM) memorandum dated 9 September 2002; PERSCOM Order Number 252-4
dated 9 September 2002; and his AER dated 18 July 2002.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 June 1989. He was
promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 1 September 1998 in military
occupational specialty 93P (Aviation Operations Specialist).
2. Around October 2001, the applicant completed the Drill Sergeant course
and was assigned to drill sergeant duties.
3. PERSCOM Order Number 133-38 dated 13 May 2002 conditionally promoted
the applicant to SFC. The orders stated, in pertinent part, Soldiers who
received a conditional promotion would have their promotion orders revoked
and their names removed from the centralized list if they failed to meet
the NCOES (NCO Education System) requirements.
4. The applicant started the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) Common Core,
Phase 2 course on or about 20 June 2002.
5. By memorandum dated 14 June 2002, the applicant's commander had
notified the applicant of his intent to remove him from drill sergeant
status. The applicant was flagged on an unknown date.
6. The applicant's ANCOC AER is dated 18 July 2002. Comments noted he had
been eliminated from the 93P ANCOC course due to being flagged in
accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-2. Comments also noted he had
fraudulently enrolled in the 93P ANCOC Phase 2 course and that he was under
investigation and was flagged in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-2.
7. On an unknown date, the applicant was relieved from drill sergeant
status. On 15 August 2002, the Commanding General, U. S. Army Aviation
Center and Fort Rucker informed the applicant his appeal to remove him was
considered and the removal decision was upheld.
8. PERSCOM Order Number 252-4 dated 9 September 2002 revoked the
applicant's SFC promotion orders and stated, in the additional
instructions, that he had been administratively removed from the SFC
promotion list.
9. By memorandum dated 9 September 2002, PERSCOM informed the applicant he
had been administratively removed from the promotion selection list based
on his being dismissed from ANCOC due to disciplinary reasons.
10. The applicant appealed the AER. The ESRB contacted the applicant's
First Sergeant, who informed the ESRB the applicant had been flagged after
his enrollment into ANCOC. His chain of command desired the applicant
should remain in ANCOC regardless of the investigation that was ongoing at
the unit. The NCO Academy, however, stated personnel being flagged by
their parent unit while attending ANCOC would be administratively removed
versus disciplinary removal. The ESRB opined, "phone conversation with
ANCOC personnel establish the AER currently on the appellant's OMPF was
improperly prepared. The appellant's AER should have reflected
administrative removal and not disciplinary removal. The appellant's
contention merits approval. EREC will delete the AER from the appellant's
OMPF." The AER was subsequently removed from his records.
11. Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions
(Flags)) states a flag prohibits attendance at civil or military schooling.
12. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states
that, effective 1 October 1993, the Army linked NCOES to promotion to SSG,
SFC, and Sergeant Major (SGM). For promotion to SFC, a Soldier must be an
ANCOC graduate. Soldiers selected for promotion to SSG, SFC, and SGM but
have not met the NCOES requirement will be promoted conditionally.
Soldiers who fail to successfully complete or do not attend their scheduled
NCOES class will be administratively reduced and removed from the list.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 June 2002 conditional upon his
successfully completing ANCOC. He started ANCOC on or about 20 June 2002.
2. Sometime after the applicant started ANCOC, his parent unit flagged
him, presumably in regard to his later removal from drill sergeant status.
In accordance with the governing regulation, the flagging action prohibited
him from continuing his military schooling. Therefore, he was
administratively removed from ANCOC.
3. The applicant's ANCOC AER erroneously indicated he had fraudulently
enrolled in ANCOC as he was under investigation and flagged. (Contrary to
the ESRB's finding, the AER did not state he was removed for disciplinary
reasons. PERSCOM's 9 September 2002 memorandum had indicated he had been
dismissed from ANCOC due to disciplinary reasons.) The applicant appealed
the AER and the ESRB granted his appeal to remove the AER.
4. Despite the erroneous information on his AER, the applicant was
properly removed from ANCOC. In accordance with the conditions of his
promotion, he was properly reduced administratively and removed from the
SFC promotion list. There is insufficient basis for granting the relief
requested.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__clg___ __rtd___ __lvb___ 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.
___Curtis L. Greenway_
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050012469 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20051006 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Chun |
|ISSUES 1. |131.02 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
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 | CY2003 | 2003088494C070403
He stated that after reviewing the applicant's December 2000 body fat content worksheet and his height and weight data dating back to February 1999, evaluation reports, and related medical documentation, he believed that his weight gain of approximately 18 pounds was directly related to his hernia, the repair surgery, and his physical inability to conduct a rigorous fitness regime from December 2000 through October 2001. Therefore, the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072622C070403
Because a record APFT taken within 60 days of attendance was required for him to attend the ANCOC, he took the APFT on 3 June 1999, and he failed the 2 mile run portion of the test, which resulted in his failure of the record APFT. The applicant concluded his reinstatement request to PERSCOM by commenting that the Baltimore Recruiting Command, his unit, failed him and the Army by failing to abide by Army regulations, policies, and procedures. The Board also finds no evidence to show that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011756C070206
The applicant states that his command did not adhere to Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) when they removed him from the promotion list by not documenting and justifying his reduction or giving him the proper counseling on the basis of his removal. He stated that his recommendation for removal from the promotion list for not meeting weight requirements was not within the time prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), which states a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074383C070403
The DA Forms 5501 reflect her record of body fat measurements as: weight 190 lbs. She informed them that it had been determined that the unit’s scale was measuring weight 8 lbs. Meeting the Army's weight and body fat standards is an individual responsibility and on this point alone the applicant's request can be denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065963C070421
The applicant states that he completed Phase I of ANCOC on 23 April 1995; however, his unit administrator (UA) failed to schedule him for Phase II of ANCOC. He is now requesting that he be rescheduled to attend ANCOC and complete Phase I and II with restoration of his rank of SFC or be scheduled to attend only Phase II of ANCOC. The commander requested a waiver of one-year time requirement for completion of ANCOC following the applicant's conditional promotion with the provision that he be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069036C070402
This policy stated that soldiers, who have not yet attended ANCOC prior to their effective date of promotion to SFC, would be promoted "conditionally." The evidence of record shows that the applicant was administered an APFT on 11 April 2000, for preenrollment at ANCOC and failed the push-up event, which precluded him from attending ANCOC. The applicant's case was reviewed by the USAR AGR Enlisted Reduction Panel, which determined that the applicant should be reduced in rank for failing to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078424C070215
The applicant states that he should have never been coded as a "No Show" for ANCOC. It states that a soldier who accepts a promotion with the condition that he or she must enroll in, and successfully complete, a specified NCOES course, and fails to meet those conditions, or is subsequently denied enrollment, or becomes an academic failure, or does not meet graduation requirements, or is declared a "No Show," will be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion. The...
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 | CY2007 | 20070005233C071108
The applicant requests, in effect, that the record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and she be reinstated to the grade of Sergeant First Class (SFC). Evidence shows that the applicant’s records were flagged effective 18 June 2003 through 14 April 2006. Evidence shows the applicant was selected for a conditional promotion for the grade of sergeant first class.