IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 September 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080010698
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, in effect, that his date of rank to staff sergeant be adjusted to 1 August 2004.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was scheduled to appear before the June 2004 staff sergeant promotion board; however, he was injured in Iraq in May 2004. He contends that he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC and that he inquired on numerous occasions as to going before the staff sergeant promotion board and was told that he could not go in a patient status.
3. The applicant provides memoranda dated 9 June 2008, 29 January 2008,
9 November 2007, 8 November 2007, 13 February 2008, and 22 January 2008; an email, dated 5 June 2008; a DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet); an Enlisted Record Brief; a sworn statement, dated 5 October 2007; and his enrollment history.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of staff sergeant.
2. Records show the applicant was wounded in action on 3 May 2004 in Iraq.
3. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was recommended for promotion to staff sergeant and selected by a promotion board in 2004.
4. On 22 January 2008, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia denied a request for retroactive recommended list status for the applicant. This letter stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant was injured prior to gaining promotable status and not granted a waiver by the medical agency during his convalescence. However, there was no fair and equitable way to provide him recommended list status while not doing so for all Soldiers who were wounded and not recommended by the medical authority during recovery. The intent of the promotion regulation is to provide a fair and equitable means of allowing competition for promotion. To provide him recommended list status retroactively would in essence disadvantage other Soldiers who had to appear before the Board.
5. Orders show the applicant was promoted to staff sergeant effective
1 December 2007.
6. On 9 June 2008, the Chief, Enlisted Career Systems Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, disapproved an exception to policy request for reconsideration to adjust the applicants DOR to staff sergeant from 1 December 2007 to 1 August 2004. The letter stated that there are no provisions contained in Army Regulation 600-8-19 for the Army G-1 to waive the applicants appearance before a promotion board, integrate him onto the local staff sergeant standing list, and subsequently authorize a retroactive promotion.
7. Paragraph 3-14 of Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states, in pertinent part, that recommendations for promotion to staff sergeant will be initiated by the Soldiers commander. This regulation also states, in effect, that Soldiers must be on the recommended list selected by a local board to be promoted to staff sergeant.
8. Paragraph 3-7b(1) of Army Regulation 600-8-19 states that a Soldier must be recommended by the hospital facility commander. Paragraph 3-7b(2) of this regulation states that patients must appear before a promotion board for consideration.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
Orders show the applicant was promoted staff sergeant effective 1 December 2007. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was recommended for promotion to staff sergeant and selected by a local board in 2004. There is also no evidence (such as a hospital commanders statement or inspector general findings) to confirm the applicants contention that he was told he could not appear before a promotion board while in a patient status. Regrettably, there is an insufficient basis for granting the applicants request.
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) AR20080010698
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080010698
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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 | CY2008 | 20080002484
The opinion stated that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a MSG position was available on 1 April 2007 for the applicants MOS of 92Y. 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. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003384
On 3 April 2005, the applicants deployment orders were amended to change his period of active duty from 12 October 2003 through 10 October 2004 to from 12 October 2003 through 31 March 2005. He declined the promotion consideration for the position in order to deploy with his unit. His battalion commander supported his request but the Brigade Commanders and the DCSPER declined his request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016774
The applicant defers statements to counsel: COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: Counsel states: a. the applicant was selected as an alternate to attend the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) and Logistics Executive Development Course (LEDC) on 27 January 2003; as a candidate to attend the resident LEDC in November 2003; however on 24 January 2003, he was mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for one year and unable to attend either course; b. during this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016946
The applicant provides the following documents as new evidence: self authored statement; Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings AR20060008821; electronic mail (e-mail) Messages; DD Form 3349 (Physical Profile); Adjutant Generals Department, Austin, Texas, Orders Number 283-1060, dated 10 October 2002; Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Orders Number 239-0332, dated 27 August 2002, and Orders Number 136-4, dated 16 May 2002; DA Form 2-1 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008821
The applicant continues that under the current Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) Soldiers are allowed to be promoted while injured and that paragraph 7-20f(3), states that the promotion criteria for Soldiers who are already promotable and pending a medical evaluation board (MEB) or a physical evaluation board (PEB) referral will not be denied promotion based on medical disqualification if they are otherwise qualified for promotion. The applicant provides copies...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009424
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier request for: * removal of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the Department of the Army (DA) Reserve Component Selection Board (RCSB) under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 or 2007 criteria * in the alternative, consideration of the applicant's records under the FY 2006 or FY 2007 Promotion Selection Board (PSB)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014906
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 31 August 2006, Subject: Reserve Component Promotion Board Military Education (MILED) Waiver Guidance states that, in accordance with paragraph 2-15b of Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers), the Chief, Office of Promotions, may grant waivers for non-statutory MILED promotion requirements...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013642
The 814th AG Company Unit Manning Report prepared on 5 November 2008 shows she was assigned to the position of Chief Human Resources Sergeant (position number 0020) in the rank of 1SG in MOS 42A5O on 22 August 2007. b. SFC S____ of the USAR 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (ESC) emailed several individuals, including the applicant indicating the applicant had been recommended [i.e., selected] for promotion to SGM against a position at her unit, the 814th AG Company. c. 1SG B____ [the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012600
Letter Orders Number D-5-967, issued by Office of the Adjutant General on 27 May 1971, ordered his retirement in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 and placement on the TDRL with a combined rating of 90 percent, effective 7 June 1971. Medical facility commanders may consider patients for promotion under the normal promotion criteria of this chapter, together with the following guidance: (1) Individuals with recommended-list status for promotion to pay grade E-5 or E-6 resulting from selection by a...