Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003570C070205
Original file (20060003570C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003570


      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             |
|     |Ms. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Sherry Stone                  |     |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, in effect, correction of his records to show he
was promoted to sergeant major (SGM), E-9.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his ratings were the highest,
“125” points, on all of his senior evaluation reports and he should have
been promoted.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 31 May 1981.  The application submitted in this case is dated 5
November 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant was inducted into the Army on 28 May 1951 and continued
to serve on active duty through a series of reenlistments.

4.  He was promoted to master sergeant (MSG), E-8 on 12 March 1973 in
primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) 82C (Field Artillery
Surveyor).  He was awarded PMOS 13W around 1979.

5.  The applicant retired on 1 June 1981 in the rank and grade of MSG, E-8.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and
reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part,
it states that centralized promotion boards (for promotion consideration to
grades E-7, E-8, and E-9) will select the best qualified Soldier in each
MOS for promotion.  They will recommend a specified number of Soldiers by
MOS from zones of



consideration who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.
The total number selected in each MOS is the projected number the Army
needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength at any given time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Without being able to review all the records, MOS/authorized-by-grade
projections and special instructions that were available to the promotion
boards that considered the applicant, the Board cannot determine why he was
not selected for promotion.  In the absence of evidence to show otherwise,
the Board concludes that the Soldiers who were recommended for promotion to
SGM were, in the promotion board’s considered opinion, the best qualified
in their MOS.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 May 1981; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 30 May 1984.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

KW______  TR______  SS______  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.







2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  Kenneth Wright________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003570                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061003                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212

    Original file (2003087561C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005924C070206

    Original file (20050005924C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He based his request on the fact that two of the NCOs selected in his MOS were selected even through they were not graduates of the USASMA, and because he believed two of the promotion board members were biased against his selection. This RC promotion official states that promotion selection boards are governed by Army regulatory policy, and members are selected for their maturity, judgment and freedom from bias. While the applicant clearly believes he is better qualified than the Soldiers...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010867C071029

    Original file (20060010867C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Sergeant Major (SGM), E-9. Not being the promotion authority for TPU Soldiers, USAHRC – STL has no historical records available that could substantiate that the applicant was given consideration for and/or promoted to SGM. However, as the advisory opinion noted, promotions to SGM would have been contingent upon a number of conditions and not just the fact the applicant completed a particular school.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019015

    Original file (20120019015.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    (2) Paragraph 3-28b states senior enlisted promotions result when data is provided to the promotion authority that reflects requirements based on current and projected position vacancies; the promotion authority announces the convening date of the selection board, location and description of current and projected position vacancies, zones of consideration for promotion selection, and administrative instructions; personnel records of Soldiers within the zone of consideration are reviewed by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020620

    Original file (20140020620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    f. He requested a formal investigation to look into how the ARNG Title 10 boards are managed and conducted. The records contain two parts: the first part addressed his complaint to his Member of Congress requesting a formal investigation into the FY12 and FY13 SGM promotion boards being mismanaged and not conducted properly, and the second part addressed his complaint that there were no promotions for the 79T career field, despite vacancies, and the personnel reductions were based on a FY14...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007660

    Original file (20070007660.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 28 August 2006, the applicant requested, through her unit commander to Human Resources Command, a review and reconsideration of her military personnel records for promotion to sergeant major based on her premise that the promotion board considered her in the wrong PMOS. On 27 September 2006, the applicant initiated a personnel action request to reclassify from her PMOS 42L5P to MOS 42A5P, with a requested MOS reclassification date of 29 March 2006, which is the date she completed the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003039

    Original file (20130003039.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests a retroactive promotion to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and consideration for promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9. f. as noted in the supporting endorsements of the BSM award recommendation, both the Battalion Commander and Special Forces Task Force Commander in Desert Shield/Storm and Group Commander stated that had this information been known at the time the award of the BSM would have been made in 1991. g. he requests the recently-approved BSM be used for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007736

    Original file (20130007736.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Paragraph 3-10a (10) of this regulation states to assign Soldiers in the same grade or up to two grades higher if no higher ranking Soldiers are available. The available evidence shows the applicant retired in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6. There is no evidence in the applicant's record and he provides no evidence which shows he was ever promoted beyond the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6.

  • 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 | CY2007 | 20070005094C071029

    Original file (20070005094C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...