RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 November 2006
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011393
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. Stephanie Thompkins | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. William F. Crain | |Chairperson |
| |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss | |Member |
| |Mr. Donald L. Lewy | |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, promotion consideration for chief
warrant officer five (CW5) by a special selection board (SSB) under the
2005 and 2006 year criteria.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was not considered by the 2005
and 2006 promotion boards because his records had the wrong primary
military occupational specialty (MOS). He was awarded MOS 153D in February
1984 and his records indicated he was performing duty in a MOS 153B
position. MOS 153B was not an MOS considered by the 2005 and 2006
promotion boards.
3. The applicant provides copies of his Letter Order Classification of
United States Army Reserve Warrant Officers memorandum and his Master Army
Aviator award orders in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Based on a review of the applicant’s records by the Office of
Promotions, Reserve Components, Human Resources Command – St. Louis,
Missouri, it was determined the applicant was erroneously not considered by
the 2006 Reserve Components Selection Board and was eligible for
consideration for promotion to CW5 under the 2006 year criteria as an
omission.
2. A staff member of the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Human
Resources Command – St. Louis, verified that the Memorandum of Instructions
(MOI) for the 2005 CW5 promotion board did not identify warrant officers
serving in MOS 153B for consideration. The MOI specifically identified
MOSs in which slots were available to promote an officer. A review of the
applicant's records shows he was serving in MOS 153B at the time of the
2005 CW5 promotion board. Therefore, he is not eligible for consideration
for promotion to CW5 under the 2005 year criteria as an omission.
3. Documentation submitted by the applicant shows he was awarded Primary
MOS 153D and Additional MOS 153B effective 1 December 1997.
4. Current promotion policy specifies that promotion consideration/
reconsideration by a SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration
or material error that existed in the record at the time of consideration.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s records were erroneously not considered for promotion
to CW5 under the 2006 year criteria and should now be submitted for
appropriate SSB consideration for this purpose.
2. The evidence of records shows the applicant was serving in his
additional MOS 153B at the time of the 2005 promotion board and the MOI for
that board did not identify officers serving in MOS 153B for consideration.
Therefore, he does not have a basis for consideration by a SSB under the
2005 year criteria.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be
appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
__AM___ __DLL___ _WFC __ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by submitting his records to a duly constituted
special selection board for promotion consideration for chief warrant
officer five under the 2006 year criteria.
2. That if selected, his records be further corrected by showing he was
promoted to chief warrant officer five on his date of eligibility, as
determined by appropriate Departmental officials, using the 2006 year
criteria, provided he was otherwise qualified and met all other
prerequisites for promotion.
3. That if not selected, the applicant be so notified.
4. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result,
the Board recommends
denial of so much of the application that pertains to promotion
consideration by a special selection board for promotion consideration to
chief warrant officer five under the 2005 year criteria.
____William F. Crain_________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20060011393 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20061130 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |GRANT/PARTIAL |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |131.00 |
|2. |131.10 |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017883
The denial recommendation cited in the USAHRC advisory opinion, dated 26 January 2011, shows that the applicant was not considered for promotion to CW5 based on information that his occupational specialty of 915E was not included in the specialties to be considered for promotion to CW5, which removed his name from the list of consideration. USAHRC later stated in a revised advisory opinion, dated 29 April 2011, that the applicant was erroneously removed from the board due to his MOS. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011637
The applicant requests, in effect, consideration for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) by a Department of the Army Promotion Advisory Board under the 2006 criteria. The advisory opinion states the applicants file was omitted from the 2006 Department of the Army Reserve Components Selection Board for promotion to CW5 and that he is eligible for consideration for promotion to CW5 by a Department of the Army Promotion Advisory Board. If the applicant is selected for promotion to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010891
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion consideration for chief warrant officer five by a special selection board (SSB) under the 2006 year criteria. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board for promotion consideration for chief warrant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018748
The applicant states I was not considered for selection to CW5 as a 420A Military Personnel Technician, although 420A is my primary MOS and I was in the promotion zone of consideration. On 1 April 2008, the Warrant Officer Branch, USAHRC-STL, confirmed to the Board analyst that the applicant's primary MOS is 420A and his additional MOS is 270A. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of record shows that the applicant was not considered for promotion to CW5 based on the information that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012156C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion reconsideration for chief warrant officer five (CW5) due to material error in his promotion consideration file. The applicant states, that he was not selected for promotion to CW5 by the 2006 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) due to material error. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010482
The applicant requests consideration for promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5). The POC stated that no error had been made, that consideration of AOC 670A officers for CW5 was not considered necessary. The applicant states his AOC was not included on the list to be considered by the 2009 board and he requests consideration by an SSB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019264
The applicant requests, in effect, that she be reconsidered for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) by a Special Selection Board (SSB). Therefore, it would be appropriate to have the applicant's record placed before an SSB for consideration for promotion under the criteria of the FY2008 CW5 RCSB. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. submitting her records to a duly constituted SSB for promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000581
The applicant requests promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5). He had over 18 years of time in grade (TIG) as a chief warrant officer four (CW4), completed the Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course, selected by the State Adjutant General, and performed CW5 duties as the Detachment Commander, Detachment 25 (DET 25), OSA (Operational Support Airlift), Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG), Smyrna, TN, for 19 months (February 2008 through August 2009). The applicant provides: * a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006410
The applicant requests promotion reconsideration as an exception to policy to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, 2010, and 2011 CW5 Promotion Selection Boards. On 22 January 2012, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration for promotion to CW5 by the FY2010 and FY2011 Promotion Selection Boards based on an error on his complete-the-record Officer Evaluation Report (OER). He continues by stating that it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014839
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records to add a Complete-the-Record (Code 09) Officer Evaluation Report (OER) to his official military personnel file (OMPF) and to have his records considered by a Department of the Army Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5). MILPER Message Number 08-012, issued 10 January 2008, provided at paragraph 4c(2) that Complete-the-Record OER's were to have a "Thru Date" of 4 January 2008 to...