RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 July 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005094


      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. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Blakely               |     |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, reinstatement of her promotion to
Sergeant Major (SGM), effective 1 December 2006.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her removal from the promotion
standing by Human Resources Command (HRC) and the resultant reduction to
master sergeant (MSG) without prior notification was unjust.  She claims
that in August 2006, she followed guidelines in Army Regulation 600-8-19
for submitting a request for SGM promotion reconsideration by a Stand-By
Advisory Board (STAB).  Her request was based on the results of the 42A/42L
SGM board analysis and the lack of guidelines to Soldiers in the 42 Career
Management Field (CMF) on competing for promotion to SGM.  She claims that
on
22 November 2006, she received notification from the HRC Chief, Promotions
Branch, that her name was added to the SGM promotion list based on her
selection for promotion by the STAB, and she received promotion orders that
authorized her promotion to SGM on 1 December 2006.

3.  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.  She also states that the most
disturbing element of her case is the fact she was never given the
opportunity to rebut the decision to the appellate authority, which is HRC,
the same command that approved the removal action.  She states that she
left work one day as a SGM and returned the next morning, although
unbeknownst to her, as a MSG.  She claims that the humiliation and
devastation she experiences every day as a result of this unjust reduction
in rank cannot be put into words.  She concludes by stating that her
removal from the promotion standing list and the resultant reduction in
rank is ethically and morally wrong, and she should not be the one to
suffer from the error made by HRC officials.

4.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  Self-Authored Statement; STAB Packet; HRC Promotion Selection
Memorandum; SGM Promotion Orders; HRC STAB Disapproval Memorandum; HRC
Administrative Removal Memorandum; HRC Reduction Orders; Excerpts of Army
Regulation 600-8-19; Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Reports; Army
Commendation Medal Certificate; and Academic Evaluation Reports.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 29 November 1985, and has continuously served
through the present.

2.  On 1 January 2003, the applicant was promoted to MSG in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Senior Sergeant), which
subsequently converted to MOS 42L (Senior Human Resources Sergeant).

3.  The Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Army Command Sergeant Major
(CSM/SGM/Sergeant's Major Course (SMC)) selection board convened on
3 June 2006, and the promotion selection list was approved and released on
1 August 2006.

4.  On 10 August 2006, the applicant requested reclassification into MOS
42A based on her completion of the Senior Human Resources Noncommissioned
Officer (NCO) Certification Course on 20 February 2006.  This request was
approved on 10 August 2006.

5.  On 28 August 2006, the applicant requested reconsideration for
promotion to SGM by a STAB under the criteria used by the Fiscal Year 2006
(FY06) Department of the Army Command Sergeant Major (CSM/SGM/Sergeant's
Major Course (SMC)) selection board.  She based her request on the fact
that although her current MOS was 42A, at the time of the promotion board
consideration, she held MOS 42L.  She claims she completed the 42A Senior
Human Resources NCO certification course in February 2006, and at that
time, she inquired on what further actions were necessary to proper
document her qualifications in the MOS, and she was told there were none
necessary.  She further pointed out that CMF 42 panel chief analysis
contained in the promotion selection board results indicated that there was
a lack of guidance to 42L's competing for selection to SGM during the
board.  She further stated that she subsequently requested and was granted
reclassification into MOS 42A and was currently serving in a brigade S-1
position.

6.  On 21 November 2006, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch,
HRC, published a memorandum notifying the applicant's commander that the
applicant had been considered for promotion by the DA STAB, which adjourned
on 18 October 2006.  It further confirmed the STAB recommended the
applicant's name be added to the promotion standing list in MOS 42A, and
that she be assigned a sequence number of 12.5.

7.  On 21 November 2006, the applicant's promotion to SGM and
reclassification into MOS 42A, effective 1 December 2006, was announced in
DA HRC Orders Number 325-6.

8.  On 28 February 2007, the Director for Military Personnel Management
(DMPM), Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, published a memorandum to
the Adjutant General (AG), regarding STAB eligibility.  In it, this
official indicated that following the FY06 CSM/SGM/SMC selection board,
several Soldiers, possessing MOS 42L, initiated requests for STAB
consideration based on the premise they were not considered in their
correct primary MOS (PMOS) of 42A.

9.  This DMPM further indicated these requests were based on the belief
that Soldiers completing the on-line 42A transition course would
automatically be reclassified into the primary MOS 42A.  She further
indicated that approval of STAB requests would not be consistent with
existing Army policy.  She stated that Soldiers who completed the 42A
distance learning courseware were required to submit requests for
reclassification.  Accordingly, these Soldiers were correctly considered
for promotion in their existing PMOS of 42L and were not otherwise eligible
for consideration in a different MOS.  She requested the AG take immediate
action to properly disapprove the erroneously approved STAB's, to revoke
previously executed promotions in MOS 42A, in a defacto status, if the
Soldier's selection was predicated on erroneous approval of a STAB, and by
disapproving all future or existing STAB requests based on this scenario.

10.  On 1 March 2007, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch,
notified the applicant that her request for STAB consideration, which was
approved in error, was disapproved, and HRC published Orders Number 60-1,
which revoked Orders Number 325-6, the applicant's SGM promotion orders.
The special instructions indicated that the applicant was administratively
removed from the promotion list and granted defacto status for the period
1 December 2006 through 1 March 2007.

11.  On 5 April 2007, the applicant appealed the revocation of her
promotion and her removal from the promotion standing list.  She claimed
this removal action gave the false impression that she misled the promotion
board regarding the date of her reclassification into MOS 42A.  However,
she stated this was misleading and a more accurate synopsis of what
occurred is that she completed the course requirements on 20 February 2006,
which allowed ample time to submit a reclassification action prior to the
convening date of the promotion board, had proper guidance been provided
Soldiers in the field.

12.  In her appeal, the applicant also stated that she clearly stated in
her STAB request that she had not requested reclassification because she
did not know it was a requirement to do so, which was clear in her request
and in the packet submitted to HRC for STAB consideration.  She claimed her
outstanding performance as a SGM was documented in an evaluation report she
received and an Army Commendation Medal she was awarded while serving in
that rank.

13.  On 7 May 2007, the DMPM disapproved the applicant's appeal of her
removal from the promotion standing list.  She informed the applicant that
administrative decisions leading to the applicant's consideration and
ultimate selection for promotion to SGM, via the STAB process, were not
consistent with Army policy and the applicant was not otherwise eligible
for such consideration.
The DMPM further informed the applicant that the FY06 CSM/SGM/SMC selection
board correctly considered the applicant for promotion in her PMOS of 42L.
She further notified the applicant of the procedures for appealing the
decision to this Board.

14.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion
was obtained from the HRC Chief, Promotions Branch.  This official stated
that the decision to grant the applicant eligibility for STAB consideration
was an error, resulting from a misunderstanding of the ongoing elimination
of MOS 42L from the Army inventory.  He stated that following the FY06
CSM/SGM/SMC selection board, during which the applicant was considered in
MOS 42L, the applicant was convinced she should have been considered for
promotion to SGM in MOS 42A, based on her having previously completing the
on-line 42A transition course.  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 for promotion
in MOS 42A by a STAB.  He states that both the applicant and HRC Promotions
Branch, were satisfied that completion of the on-line 42A transition course
resulted in automatic reclassification to MOS 42A, which validated her STAB
request.  Unfortunately, this was an error because Soldier's were required
to submit requests for reclassification, and there was no automatic
reclassification based on completion of the on-line course.  In correcting
the error, HRC and the Army G-1 staff were correct in methodology, which
upheld Army policy; however, given the unique circumstances of the
applicant's case, and the lack of clarity in the guidance provided to her
and the rest of the field in terms of reclassification requirements, this
HRC official states that favorable consideration of the applicant's request
by this Board as a means to alleviate a perceived injustice is appropriate.


15.  On 5 July 2007, the applicant concurred with the HRC advisory opinion.


16.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides
the Army's enlisted promotion policy.  Paragraph 4-14 provides guidance on
the processing of STAB requests.  It states, in pertinent part, that a
referral to the STAB may be approved upon determining that a material error
existed in a Soldier's OMPF when the file was reviewed by a promotion
selection board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the revocation of her promotion to SGM
was unjust was carefully considered and found to have merit.  It appears
the applicant's STAB consideration and selection were inconsistent with
Army promotion policy, as indicated by the DMPM in both her correspondence
to the AG and her denial of the applicant's appeal.  However, this is not
the determinative factor in this case.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant completed the
certification course that confirmed her qualification for reclassification
into MOS 42A in February 2006, well before the convening date of the FY06
CSM/SGM/SMC selection board on 3 June 2006.  It further shows that both
she, and HRC promotion officials believed this was sufficient for her to be
considered for promotion to SGM in MOS 42A.  It is also clear that the Army
guidance on reclassification from MOS 42L to MOS 42A was unclear at the
time and although a formal request for reclassification was necessary, this
information does not seem to have been properly and clearly disseminated
throughout the Army.

3.  In view of the facts of this case, given the applicant had completed
the certification course and her reclassification was subsequently approved
based on her completion of this course, it would be appropriate to correct
her record to show her reclassification into MOS 42A was approved,
effective 20 February 2006, and that she held this MOS on 3 June 2006, the
date the FY06 CSM/SGM/SMC selection board convened.  It would also serve
the interest of justice and equity to reinstate the applicant's promotion
to SGM, effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2006, and to
provide her all back pay and allowances due as a result.

BOARD VOTE:

___JNS__  __DKH__  __WB___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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:

      a.  showing she was reclassified into MOS 42A on 20 February 2006;

      b.  showing she was properly considered and selected for promotion to
SGM in MOS 42A by the FY06 CSM/SGM/SMC selection board;

      c.  reinstating her promotion to SGM, effective and with a date of
rank of
1 December 2006; and

      d.  providing her all back pay and allowances due as a result.




                                  _____John N. Slone______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070005094                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/07/18                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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