Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000855C071029
Original file (20070000855C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000855


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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, that she be promoted to the rank of
sergeant first class (SFC).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she was not considered for promotion
to SFC by the August 2005 Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)/DIMA promotion
board.  She claims she requested release from her United States Army
Reserve (USAR) unit to accept a two-year Contingency Operations-Extended
Active Duty (CO-EAD) tour.  On 2 March 2005, she was reassigned to the USAR
Control Group (Reinforcement) and was placed on a two-year tour, effective
28 March 2005.

3.  The applicant further states that her CO-EAD tour started on 29 March
2005 and at that time, she began to inquire about her eligibility for
promotion.  She states the confusion began initially when she was told that
due to her status code showing "1" (Active Army), she would have to compete
for promotion on the Active Army side.  She claims she explained to her
career managers that she was in fact an IRR Soldier on active duty.  She
states that no one knew for sure which promotion board she should be
considered by.  She claims to have been repeatedly told that due to her
status code of "1" she would not stand a chance because of her military
occupational specialty (MOS), nor would she be able to compete due to the
stringent active duty requirements.

4.  The applicant indicates that in December 2005, she began to document
electronic mail (e-mail) messages and written journals and continued her
quest through her chain of command and through Human Resources Command,
St. Louis, Missouri (HRC-St. Louis) promotion officials, and felt she was
at a dead end and was being given the run around.  She claims to have
continuously explained that she was an IRR Soldier and was only on active
duty orders.  Later she was told there was a possible plan in place being
considered to allow
CO-EAD Soldiers to be considered for promotion by the IRR/IMA promotion
board coming up in August 2005.  Lacking solid answers, she immediately
began to prepare to enroll in the next scheduled Noncommissioned Officer
Education System (NCOES) course (Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course
(BNCOC), Phase II), which started on 13 August 2005.

5.  The applicant states that she was concerned with meeting the deadline
to submit her Academic Evaluation Report (AER) and asked her
noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) and her officer in charge (OIC)
about submitting a waiver based on the fact the promotion board was due to
meet during the last week of her school.  She claims to have asked about
this several times, but was continually told a waiver would not be
accepted.  She claims to have completed the final phase of the BNCOC on 26
August 2005.
6.  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.  She
then requested the matter be addressed at a higher level and requested to
meet with the Inspector General (IG) to file a complaint.  At this time,
her NCOIC suggested that prior to going to the IG, she might want to
consider meeting with the Plans Sergeant Major (SGM).  On 12 June 2006, she
met with this individual and was again informed she should have been
considered by the active duty board.

7.  The applicant summarizes that it was the lack of effort and lack of
follow through, coupled with being constantly run around for almost 2 years
that caused her to have been passed over for promotion by at least the 2005
IRR/IMA promotion board.  She indicates that she was finally advised in an
e-mail message on 21 June 2006 that she was not eligible for the active
duty promotion board in 2005; however, she still had never been officially
notified that she was not eligible for that board.

8.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application: Self-Authored Statement; E-Mail Messages; Personal Log; and
AER.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that she enlisted in the USAR on 14 July
1992.  She was initially trained in and awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator) and assigned to a Troop
Program Unit (TPU).  She later reenlisted and was awarded the secondary MOS
of 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

2.  The applicant's record shows she was promoted to the following ranks on
the dates indicated:  private/E-2 (PV2), 22 February 1993; private first
class/E-3 (PFC), 2 August 1996; specialist/E-4 (SPC), 6 July 1997;
sergeant/E-5 (SGT),
19 March 2002; and staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG), 20 November 2003.

3.  On 8 March 2005, Department of the Army (DA), Human Resources Command,
Alexandria, Virginia (HRC-Alexandria), ordered the applicant to active
duty, in the rank of SSG, for a 2-year period, effective 29 March 2005.
The purpose of the active duty was to fulfill active duty requirements in
accordance with the CO-EAD program.  She was assigned to HRC-St. Louis.

4.  On 26 August 2005, the applicant completed the MOS 88M BNCOC.

5.  On 28 March 2007, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
and returned to a USAR unit.  The separation document (DD Form 214) she was
issued shows she completed 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days of active duty
service during the period.

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from HRC-St. Louis promotion officials.  The opinion indicated
that EAD Soldiers were boarded for promotion by HRC-St. Louis during
Calendar Year (CY) 2003 and CY 2004, as an exception to policy, which was
granted by the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG).  This action
was required because these Soldiers were counted against Active Army
requirements.  OTJAG did not extend this exception for CY 2005, and even
had an exception for CY 2005 been granted, the applicant would still not
have been eligible for consideration because she had not completed the
NCOES requirement for promotion.  It further indicated that the applicant
was considered by the CY 2006 USAR IRR/IMA board, but was not selected for
promotion.  This official finally opines that no error or injustice
occurred in regard to the applicant's consideration for promotion to SFC.

7.  On 29 May 2007, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC-St. Louis
advisory opinion in order to have an opportunity to respond to or rebut its
contents.  To date, she has failed to reply.

8.  The applicant provides several e-mail messages, dated between
November 2005 and June 2006.  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.  These messages indicate she
was not eligible for promotion consideration in 2005 and she was advised to
prepare for the August 2006 IRR/IMA promotion board.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of
Army enlisted personnel.  It is applicable to enlisted members of the
Active Army, Army National Guard (ARNG), and USAR.  Paragraph 1-27 contains
guidance on the NCOES promotion requirements.  It states, in pertinent
part, that a Soldier must be a graduate of the BNCOC to be considered for
promotion to SFC.  Soldiers otherwise eligible for promotion consideration,
but lacking the prerequisite NCOES level as a direct result of operational
deployment conflicts, or the inability of the Army to schedule the course,
will be granted a waiver by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  In the case of
USAR Soldiers, this authority is delegated to
HRC-St. Louis.  Those Soldiers selected for promotion to SFC whose
eligibility resulted from a waiver of the requisite NCOES course will have
their promotion held in abeyance until the requisite NCOES course is
completed.

10.  Paragraph 6-13 of the enlisted promotions regulation contains guidance
on consideration by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB).  It states, in
pertinent part, that a member will be eligible for STAB consideration when
there is evidence that the member was not properly considered for promotion
or when there was a material error in the record reviewed by the regular
promotion selection board.  It further states that an error is material
when, in the judgment of a mature individual familiar with promotion
selection proceedings, a reasonable chance exists that had the error not
existed, the Soldier may have been selected.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that she should be promoted to SFC because
it was unclear what selection board should have considered her for
promotion was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was not eligible for
consideration for promotion to SFC until she completed BNCOC on 26 August
2005.  Absent any evidence that she failed to complete the course due to
operational deployment conflicts or the inability of the Army to schedule
the course, there is no apparent basis to support granting her a waiver of
this requisite BNCOC NCOES requirement to be eligible for consideration for
promotion to SFC.

3.  Further, the record shows that subsequent to her completion of BNCOC,
she was properly considered for promotion to SFC by the CY 2006 USAR
IRR/IMA selection board, but was not selected.  As a result, absent any
evidence of a material error in her record, there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis to support her reconsideration for promotion to SFC by a
STAB, or her promotion to SFC at this time.

4.  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

__JEA __  __LVB  __  __RDG__  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.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070000855                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/18                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.000                                 |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016275

    Original file (20080016275.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows that the applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 September 2002. He was accordingly scheduled to attend BNCOC; however, due to his surgery, he requested a deferment in July 2003 of his August 2003 BNCOC class. However, he provided no evidence to show he informed anyone between November 2003 and August 2004 (when he deployed) that he was medically cleared to attend BNCOC.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012856

    Original file (20060012856.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The first such promotion board was the CY2003 IRR/IMA/EAD board. In conclusion, the G1 advisory opinion stated the applicant's 1999 promotion was erroneous and was properly revoked.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03099776C070212

    Original file (03099776C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 20090019947

    Original file (20090019947.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The advisory official stated that after a thorough review of the applicant's records, his office recommends his reinstatement to the rank of SFC with the understanding that he will not be eligible for promotion to master sergeant (MSG) until he completes all required NCO education courses. Neither promotion order indicates his promotion was conditional upon completion of NCOES. a. Paragraph 1-27 (NCOES Requirement for Promotion and Conditions Promotion) states that a Soldier must be a WLC...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014443

    Original file (20080014443.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication or evidence in the applicant's records that she was enrolled in or completed Phase II of MOS 54B BNCOC as stipulated in her promotion orders. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was conditionally promoted to SSG/E-6 on 30 June 1998 in MOS 54B contingent upon her successful completion of BNCOC. With respect to the applicant's contention that she should be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7, there is no evidence that the applicant met grade and/or NCOES...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019355

    Original file (20100019355.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. DA Form 87 (Certificate of Training) that shows the applicant successfully completed ALC Common Core on 3 May 2010. e. ERB, dated 31 May 2010, that shows in: (1) section I (Assignment Information - Overseas/Deployment Combat Duty) his last tour of duty in Iraq was from 4 May 2007 to 4 May 2008; (2) section III (Service Data) he was promoted to SFC on 3 May 2010; (3) section VI (Military Education) does not show BNCOC, Phase 1; BNCOC, Phase 2; SLC, Phase 2; or ALC Common Core (Phase 1);...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003904

    Original file (20080003904.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | CY2009 | 20090003262

    Original file (20090003262.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 4 states in pertinent part that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 or designee may approve cases for referral to a standby advisory board upon determining that a material error existed in a SoldierÂ’s official military personnel file (OMPF) when the file was reviewed by a promotion board. The applicant implies that his selection for promotion by the first promotion board that convened after he was granted BNCOC equivalency credit indicates he would have been...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003187

    Original file (20070003187.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A copy, dated 6 June 2006, of her graduate academic history, not an official transcript, from the university registrar showing she had completed 15 hours of graduate study during the period Fall 2005 through Spring 2006. c. A series of military orders: (1) Temporary Change of Station (TCS) Orders 06-100-00020, dated 10 April 2006, published by Headquarters, United States Army Reserve (USAR) Command deploying her to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on 20 April 2006. A copy of the...