RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 May 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012856
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.
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 her date of rank for promotion to Sergeant Major (SGM) be changed to 1 December 1999.
2. The applicant states:
a. She is a member of the US Army Reserve (USAR) and she entered on extended active duty (EAD) for 3 years on 25 January 1999. Later in 1999, she was advised by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, MO that she had been selected for promotion to SGM.
b. She made the appropriate inquiries concerning how her EAD status might affect her promotion to SGM and she was told it would have no effect. She was promoted to SGM on 1 December 1999.
c. On 27 April 2000, her promotion was revoked. She states no one in ARPERSCOM could provide a satisfactory answer as to why her promotion was revoked. She requested "de facto" promotion to SGM and was denied.
d. She was again promoted to SGM on 1 November 2003 her current date of rank and she was still on EAD.
3. The applicant provides:
a. A 21 November 2006 memorandum from the US Army Human Resources Command (HRC) St. Louis, MO (formerly ARPERSCOM).
b. Orders A-12-004395, US Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO, dated 31 December 1998, ordering her to EAD under the authority of Army Regulation (AR) 612-205.
c. Orders 354-5, US Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, dated 20 December 1999, promoting her to SGM effective 1 December 1999.
d. Orders 118-2, US Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, dated 27 April 2000, revoking her promotion to SGM.
e. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) with associated documents, dated 9 August 2000, wherein she requests de facto status as a SGM.
f. Orders A-12-004395A02, US Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, dated 7 January 2002, amending her EAD orders by extending her active service to 24 January 2005.
g. Orders 289-24, US Army HRC St. Louis, dated 16 October 2003, promoting her to SGM with a date of rank of 1 November 2003.
h. Memorandum, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Pentagon, Washington, DC, dated 15 November 1999, Subject: Enlisted Promotion/Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Policy for Soldiers Called to Active Duty in Support of the Fort Benning CONUS Replacement Center.
i. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) Message 120000Z January 1998 with Subject: USAR Enlisted Promotion/Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Policy Upon Activation in Support of Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up (PSRC) Operations.
j. Orders A-11-412118, US Army HRC Alexandria, VA, dated 24 November 2004, ordering her to EAD.
k. Electronic mail (Email).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is a USAR SGM serving an EAD tour. In 1999, she was ordered to EAD as a Master Sergeant (MSG) under the provisions of AR 612-205 (Appointment and Separation of Service Academy Attendees). While on EAD, she was selected for promotion to SGM by the CY1999 Reserve Component Selection Board. She was promoted on 1 December 1999.
2. On 27 April 2000, the US Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, issued orders revoking the applicant's promotion. The applicant attempted to obtain a de facto promotion without success.
3. Under regulations then in effect, the applicant, still on EAD, was considered for promotion by the CY2003 Individual Ready Reserve/Individual Mobilization Augmentee/Extended Active Duty (CY2003 IRR/IMA/EAD) Promotion Selection Board. She was selected and promoted to SGM effective 1 November 2003.
4. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from HQDA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 which states the applicant's initial EAD orders cited the incorrect regulation; the orders should have cited AR 135-210 (Order to Active Duty as Individuals for Other Than a Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up, Partial or Full Mobilization). As a result, she should not have been considered for promotion by a Reserve promotion board under the provision of AR 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), but by an active duty promotion board under the provisions of AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions). In 2003, the G1 granted an exception to policy to permit Reserve Soldiers on EAD to be considered for promotion under the provisions of AR 140-158. The first such promotion board was the CY2003 IRR/IMA/EAD board. The applicant was properly considered and selected by that board. In conclusion, the G1 advisory opinion stated the applicant's 1999 promotion was erroneous and was properly revoked. The opinion recommends disapproval of a date of rank adjustment. The applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion, but did not do so.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was erroneously considered for promotion by the CY1999 Reserve Promotion Board. Her resultant promotion was improper and was revoked.
2. The applicant was properly considered for promotion by the CY2003 IRR/IMA/EAD Promotion Board. Her 1 November 2003 date of rank for promotion to SGM is correct and requires no adjustment.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__wfc___ __dll___ __rsv___ 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.
William F. Crain
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060012856
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20070531
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
100.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03099776C070212
She should have been before the Army Reserve promotion board in 2001. On 22 November 2002 the Personnel Command Enlisted Promotions Branch notified this agency that the applicant was considered for promotion by the DA Enlisted Standby Advisory Board, which adjourned on 15 October 2002, and that she was not recommended for promotion under the CY02 SFC promotion selection board [criteria]. Orders published by the Army Reserve Personnel Command on 10 September 2003 show that the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000855C071029
The applicant states that after returning from BNCOC she was told she would have to wait until the following year for the IRR/IMA promotion board and that she would not have to compete on the active duty side at all. In these messages, she is communicating with both active duty and USAR promotion officials trying to determine how and when she would be considered for promotion. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was not eligible for consideration for promotion to SFC until she...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003904
In a memorandum, dated 11 September 2006, Subject: Promotion Policies for Reserve Component (RC) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) in Excess of 12 Months and Sanctuary Soldiers, USARC provided clarification to the 26 June 2006 memorandum. In a memorandum, dated 30 April 2007, Subject: Clarification and Change to Promotion Policies for Army Reserve Troop Program (TPU) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational support (ADOS) and Sanctuary Soldiers, USARC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071010C070402
The recommendation contained in the ARPERSCOM advisory opinion is that the applicant be granted de facto status for the periods 1 December 1999 through 28 December 2001. The evidence of record confirms that although the applicant technically failed to comply with the two year promotion service remaining requirement within 30 days of the effective date of his promotion, this was more the result of administrative processing errors rather than a reflection of the applicant’s intent not to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003082299C070212
At the time the promotion was revoked, ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request for de facto status be granted in accordance with regulatory guidance. It states that when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the soldier to retain pay and allowances received in that status. In view of the facts of this case, and based on the de facto status determination and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009470
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 | CY2001 | 2001065510C070421
It also mandates that the promotion authority establish the zones of consideration for promotion, announce the convening of the promotion selection board, and produce the memorandum of instructions to the promotion board members. The Board notes the contentions of the applicant that he should be granted a waiver of the zone of consideration age requirement established by the promotion authority and that his records should be placed before a STAB using the promotion criteria established for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010508
He states: a. he submitted his promotion packet to the 99th Regional Support Command (RSC), who processed it and placed him on the Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL) for a period of two years; b. in January 2009, he received a telephone call from the 99th RSC notifying him he had been selected and promoted to E-9; c. he received promotion orders on 13 February 2009 with an effective date of 15 January 2009; d. his official military personnel file reflected his promotion to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001961
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to major effective 22 May 1997. Based on the required completion, in effect at the time, of both 12 years time in service and 7 years time in grade, his PED in the USAR for major was 10 May 1997. Based on the fact that the applicant's promotion to major was not effected before his transfer to the Retired Reserve, he is not entitled to an automatic promotion to major upon his return to the Reserve.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010331
The applicant provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of her application: a. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 31 December 1992. b. U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (now known as HRC), St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, dated 31 December 1992, appointing her as a Reserve commissioned officer. e. Page 1 of Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 26 October 2000. f. Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support),...