RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  7 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007660 


	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

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda Simmons

Chairperson

Ms. Ernestine Fields

Member

Mr. Randolph Fleming

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 reinstatement of seniority sequence promotion number 17.5 issued by the promotion Standby Advisory Board (STAB) dated 18 October 2006.  Additionally, the applicant requests an effective date of 1 April 2007 for promotion to the rank of Sergeant Major.

2.  The applicant states that the Human Resources Command violated her rights to due process when she was removed from the (STAB) without prior written notification or an opportunity to rebut or appeal the removal action.

3.  The applicant provides promotion consideration documents, a notification of selection by the DA STAB, personnel action requesting MOS reclassification, Enlisted Records Brief, and a military career biography.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice, which occurred on 1 March 2007, the date of her removal from the FY 06 CSM/SGM/SMC (Command Sergeant Major/Sergeant Major/Sergeant Major Course) standing promotion list.  The application submitted in this case is dated 10 May 2007.

2.  The applicant is currently a member of the Regular Army serving as a master sergeant in primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) 42L (Administrative Specialist).

3.  On 16 August 2004, the Army issued guidance consolidating MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 42L (Administrative Specialist) to 42A (Senior Human Resources NCO) by 1 October 2007. 

4.  On 6 June 2006, the applicant's official military personnel file was reviewed by the FY 06 CSM/SGM/SMC DA Selection Board for promotion consideration to the rank of sergeant major/pay grade E-9.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria as established by MILPER Message, Number 06-053, published on 15 February 2006.

5.  On 1 August 2006, the results of the FY 06 CSM/SGM/SMC DA Selection Board was released.  The results show the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion in her PMOS 42L (Administrative Specialist).

6.  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.  Her MOS of record was 42L (Administrative Specialist).  The applicant further stated in her request that she did not initiate MOS reclassification due to advice she received from the Adjutant General Corps senior sergeant major.  The applicant requested the STAB, in effect, due to her successfully completing the internet certification course requirements for 42A (Senior Human Resources NCO Certification Course).    

7.  On 8 September 2006, the applicant's chain of command favorably endorsed her request for promotion reconsideration by a STAB. 

8.  On 12 September 2006, the servicing personnel battalion, military personnel office, favorably endorsed her request for a STAB and forwarded it to Human Resource Command, Alexandria, VA.  The official stated, in effect, that the applicant is authorized a STAB because she was considered in an MOS that was not in the Soldier's normal career progression MOS.

9.  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 certification course for 42A (Senior Human Resources NCO).  There is no documentation in her official records reclassifying her MOS.

10.  On 14 October 2006, the applicant received email notification that the STAB would reconsider her military personnel records for promotion to sergeant major.

11.  On 22 November 2006, the applicant was notified that she was recommended for promotion to sergeant major by a STAB, received a promotion seniority sequence number, and her name was added to the sergeant major promotion recommended list published on 1 August 2006.

12.  On 28 February 2007, the director of Military Personnel Management published a memorandum addressing the several Soldiers with MOS 42L who requested STABs based on their not being considered for promotion in MOS 42A.  Those requests were based on the Soldiers’ belief that their completion of the on-line transition course would result in their automatic reclassification to MOS 42A.  The Director of Military Personnel Management stated that the approval of those STABs were inconsistent with Army policy since those Soldiers had to submit requests for MOS reclassification after they completed the on-line course.  Therefore, Soldiers who were correctly considered for promotion in their existing PMOS 42L, were not eligible for consideration in a different MOS.  Based on that assessment, the Director of Military Personnel Management directed the Commander of the Human Resources Command – Alexandria to disapprove erroneously approved FY 06 STABs, revoke published promotion orders in MOS 42A, remove Soldiers from the authorized promotion standing lists; and to disapprove all future requests for STABs, if based on this conversion MOS scenario.

13.  On 1 March 2007, the applicant was notified by official memorandum that the favorable promotion consideration by the STAB was approved in error based on the applicant's MOS reclassification request initiated after the FY 2006 CSM/SGM/SMC board convened.

14.  On 1 March 2007, the applicant was also notified by separate memorandum that her name was administratively removed from the standing promotion list due to her ineligibility for the STAB.  This memorandum shows the applicant was not removed for unfavorable information or known adverse personnel actions.  Human Resource Command personnel removed the applicant's name after administrative review of the applicant's official military personnel records, specifically her MOS classification as a 42L, and under the authority of the Director of Military Personnel Management.

15.  On 2 March 2007, the applicant prepared a written appeal to Human Resources Command appealing the decision made on 1 March 2007, which removed her sequence number from the DA Centralized Promotion List.  In the applicant's appeal, she writes that her rights were violated because a member of her chain of command did not personally initiate a request to remove her from the promotion list.  She quotes the Army memorandum dated 1 March 2007 removing her from the promotion list, in which the author sited as an authorization to remove her from the list "paragraph 4-16 of Army Regulation 600-8-19" which requires unit commanders to initiate action to remove a Soldier from a promotion list. 

16.  On 7 May 2007, the applicant received official notification that her written appeal to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 requesting her seniority promotion sequence number be reinstated was disapproved.  The memorandum further states the FY 06 CSM/SGM/SMC Selection Board correctly considered the applicant in her primary MOS 42L.  The Director for Military Personnel Management states, in effect, that administrative decisions leading to the 
applicant's promotion reconsideration and ultimate selection by the STAB, then issuance of a promotion sequence number, were not consistent with established Army policy and in error.  

17.  The applicant provided an Army Distance Learning Enrollment History Form for the course titled Human Resources NCO Certification Course, which shows she successfully completed this course on 29 March 2006.  Further, the applicant provided for consideration all promotion documents for her STAB, the STAB decision, her request to appeal the removal from the promotion sequence list, excerpts from Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), her Enlisted Record Brief, and her military biography.

18.  The applicant provided a copy of guidance published on 7 July 2006, in MILPER Message, Number 06-194, which shows master sergeant/pay grade E-8 personnel are not required to complete the 42A (Senior Human Resources NCO) certification course prior to the MOS conversion which is effective 1 October 2007; but, successful course completion is highly recommended. 

19.  The applicant provided a review and analysis memorandum from the panel chief for career management field (CMF) 42 and PMOS 42, which shows that the FY06 CSM/SGM/SMC selection board considered both MOS 42L and 42A.  The author further identifies the issues of MOS certification and MOS reclassification from 42L to 42A and recommends their immediate merger in the 42 CMF structure.  The author also recommends that Army policy on reclassification of 42L to 42A be provided to the field to ensure that Soldiers are more competitive for sergeant major.  The author additionally states that 42L and 42A manning positions are interchangeable; therefore, he recommends Army G1 (Personnel) leaders should consider all 42 MOS series equally competitive for sergeant major. 

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) sets forth the basic guidance to the promotion board to select the best-qualified Soldiers who are best able to perform the duties at the next higher grade.  The board guidance is to look at the whole person concept as an established idea of judgment based on the entire record of qualities, qualifications and accomplishments rather than on one single item as the overriding issue in determining selection or rejection for promotion.  The regulation further provides promotion consideration is based on meeting the minimum military and civilian education requirements, time in grade and time in service dates, and age restrictions established by law.  Army policy further states Soldiers must be qualified in their CPMOS to maintain promotion list status.

21.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), states in pertinent part, the selection board will recommend a specified number of Soldiers by PMOS from the zones of consideration who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army. The total number selected for each CPMOS is the projected number the Army needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength levels.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states in pertinent part, Soldiers who are not selected for promotion will not be provided specific reasons for nonselection.  Soldiers may consult the statistical analysis portion of the promotion list to gain insight into the board results.  This is an analysis of the board results by MOS and CMF. The analysis provides insight into some of the areas that might have influenced the board's decision. The analysis does not include all areas represented in a Soldier's file and considered by the board.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), states in pertinent part, an error is considered material when there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed the soldier may have been selected.   The STAB considers records that were omitted by the regular board, where official changes were made to records prior to board consideration, an initial award of a Meritorious Service Medal, an annual or change of rater evaluation that was not processed and available for review by the promotion board, and an individual who was reclassified was considered for sergeant first class, master sergeant or sergeant major.   

24.  Army Regulation 614-200 (Enlisted Assignment and Utilization Management) states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers are responsible for initiating both the training and MOS reclassification requests.  Army reclassification policies states, in pertinent part, that a Reclassification Control Number (RCN) will be issued for all personnel management actions that change a Soldiers MOS and the effective date of the new PMOS is the date MOS training is completed or as directed by Human Resources Command approval authorities. 

25.  In a previous case, the Human Resources Command Chief, Promotions Branch has rendered an advisory opinion.  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 are 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, the HRC official states that favorable consideration of the applicant's request by this Board as a means to alleviate a perceived injustice is appropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her rights were violated and that she did not receive due process per Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions).  The applicant was removed from the STAB promotion list due to an internal Human Resources Command administrative error.  The applicant was not eligible to be considered for promotion in MOS 42A.  The applicant was not removed from the promotion list because of unfavorable personal misconduct nor 
was her removal initiated by her local commander, which would necessitate due process, which would include the right to appeal.  As such, the applicant's rights were not violated. 

2.  The applicant contends in her initial request for the STAB that the promotion board did not consider her in a MOS within her normal career specialty progression.  Army policy, in effect, at the time of her regularly scheduled promotion board and the STAB shows that MOS 42L (Administrative Specialist) is converting to MOS 42A (Human Resources NCO) with a conversion date of 1 October 2007.  The applicant was considered by the FY 06 CSM/SGM/SMC within her PMOS since she had not been converted to MOS 42A at that time.

3.  The applicant contends that her completion certificate from the Distance Learning Center, in effect, supports awarding her the MOS 42A and supports her initial request for the STAB.  Army personnel management reclassification process and procedures states, in effect, that a PMOS change requires a reclassification number and orders must be published to effect the change of PMOS.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant completed the certification course that confirmed her qualification for reclassification into MOS 42A in March  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.  

4.  In view of the facts of this case, given the fact that the applicant had completed the certification course, it would be appropriate to correct her record to show her reclassification into MOS 42A was approved, effective 29 March 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 seniority promotion sequence number of 17.5, and to promote her on the date originally established by HRC directives for this particular sequence number.  Finally, the applicant should be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result of her initial removal from the promotion sequence list.


BOARD VOTE:

__LS____  __EF ___  __RF ___  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 29 March 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 sequence number 17.5 to SGM, and then publishing promotion orders based on the date HRC-Alexandria would have originally promoted her; and 

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






_____  Linda Simmons________
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007660
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT 
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
131.02
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.