IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        5 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080002484 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) to master sergeant (MSG) be adjusted from 1 July 2007 to 1 April 2007.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the delay of his promotion was through no fault of his own and was entirely out of his control or influence.  He states, in effect, that the appropriate personnel management did not permit his assignment to a MSG position prior to the promotion board release date as other selected Soldiers were fortunate enough to be previously assigned.  He states that the MSG positions were documented on various U.S. Army Force Management Support Agency organizational Table of Distribution and Allowance source documents.  He was selected for promotion to MSG by the 2007 Title 10 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Enlisted Promotion Board under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-19 and the Title 10 AGR enlisted promotion Memorandum of Instruction.  

3.  The applicant provides several email messages; the 2007 Title 10 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant Promotion Board Results, dated 23 March 2007; the 2007 Title 10 AGR Enlisted Promotion Board Announcement, dated 18 October 2007; his promotion orders to MSG, dated 5 July 2007; a portion of Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 611-21, dated 31 March 1999; and a portion of Chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-8-19, dated 20 March 2008.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior inactive and active service, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 10 August 2000.  He was ordered to active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status on 7 November 2000.

2.  The applicant is currently serving on active duty in an AGR status.

3.  He was promoted to sergeant first class effective 6 July 2004.

4.  The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 23 March 2007, Subject:  2007 Title 10 AGR MSG Promotion Board results.  The memorandum indicated that promotion to MSG was based upon being in a promotable status, i.e.; availability of a controlled grade, and assignment to a MSG or First Sergeant authorized position. The 2007 MSG Promotion Board results show the applicant with 819 promotion points, along with seven other Soldiers in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y.  His sequence number was “1.”  

5.  Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau (NGB) Orders 186-3, dated 5 July 2007, promoted the applicant to MSG in MOS 92Y5PG3OO effective 1 July 2007 with a DOR of 1 July 2007.  

6.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau.  The NGB recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request.  The opinion stated that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a MSG position was available on 1 April 2007 for the applicant’s MOS of 92Y.  The opinion indicated that the 8 April 2008 email from the Chief of Enlisted Policy Division stated a MSG 42A slot became available in July 2007 and the promotion became effective as a result of the availability.  It is irrelevant that Soldiers within the same career management field were promoted in their MSG positions prior to the applicant because they held different MOSs.  The opinion referenced Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 4, paragraph 12-(h) which states that the DOR will be the effective date of promotion.  Paragraph 6 of the 2007 Title 10 AGR MSG Promotion Board Results stated that promotion to MSG was based upon being in a promotable status, to include availability of a controlled grade.  

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for possible comments.  However, he did not respond within the allotted timeframe.  

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part, it states that Army National Guard Soldiers selected for promotion will be in sequence of the career progression military occupational specialty (CPMOS) list and meet all promotion requirements in this chapter and the promotion board Memorandum of Instruction (MOI).  The CPMOS will normally be the primary MOS unless there is a compelling reason to choose another MOS in which the Soldier is qualified or is directed to become qualified (see National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, chapter 2).  Soldiers must be qualified in their CPMOS to maintain promotion list status, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. 

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 7-22a states that Army National Guard Soldiers may be promoted into vacant positions on the basis of selection by a promotion board and placement in the selection objective of a promotion list, except for the actions in section III of this chapter.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 7-28d states that once considered and selected for promotion and assigned to a valid position, per paragraph 7-40, Soldiers are promotable and may be promoted with an effective date and DOR on the date they are assigned to the valid higher graded position.  AGR promotions to MSG and SGM will be effective the date the Soldier is assigned to a valid position, date an AGR control grade is authorized, or if applicable, the date enrolled in U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA), whichever is later.  AGR Soldiers selected and assigned to higher graded positions before the list expires, but are not promoted because a control grade is not available, will remain assigned pending availability of a control grade resource.  Soldiers are no longer required to compete for the position for which selected.   

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was selected for promotion to MSG by the 2007 Title 10 AGR MSG Promotion Board in MOS 92Y. 

2.  The applicant was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 1 July 2007.

3.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was assigned to a 92Y duty position requiring a MSG or that a 92Y MSG position was available prior to 1 July 2007.   

4.  It appears there is no error or injustice in this case.  It appears the applicant was appropriately promoted to MSG in MOS 92Y with a DOR of 1 July 2007 and there is no basis for adjusting his DOR to MSG to 1 April 2007.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  __xx____  ___xx___  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.




      _______ _ xxxx_____   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080002484



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080002484



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1