IN THE CASE OF: SANDERS, ANDRE D.
BOARD DATE: 10 May 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100017641
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 his date of rank (DOR) for sergeant major (SGM) be adjusted to 1 November 2009.
2. The applicant states he was assigned to an E-9 position in September 2009 with a reporting date of 5 January 2010. The valid E-9 position is located at the 336th Financial Management Center (FMC) in Lake Charles, LA, where he is currently assigned. On 20 August 2009, he was informed he was selected for promotion to SGM in primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 36B (financial management). On 10 September 2009, he was assigned to an SGM 36B position and received orders from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) in Alexandria with a reporting date of 5 January 2010 to his new duty location. He was told he had to have a valid E-9/SGM position in order to be promoted, which he did. He was frocked to SGM effective 3 December 2009. The first 17 official promotions were effective 1 November 2009 and 2 additional promotions were approved for December 2009 for which he did not qualify due to the aggregate Army percentage.
3. He states that according to HRC in St. Louis, MO, the aggregate strength percentage for his MOS was above 100 percent and he was not going to be promoted until the percentage fell below 100 percent. After 3 months, he was officially promoted effective 1 February 2010. He spoke with the Enlisted Promotions Branch regarding the delay of his effective date. He was told there was an MOS 42A Soldier occupying an MOS 36B position causing that position to count against the MOS 36B aggregate strength. The Soldier residing in the 36B position was not MOS qualified to be in that position and the position should have been vacant. If this error was the reason he was not promoted until 1 February 2010, his effective date should be 1 November 2009. His promotion date should be 1 November 2009 based on the valid E-9 position in MOS 36B to which he was assigned on 10 September 2009 and based on the administrative error in the system.
4. The applicant provides:
* DA Form 1559 (Inspector General Action Request)
* promotion orders
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 January 1981. On 14 January 1993, he was honorably discharged in the rank of sergeant. After a break in service, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 9 May 1994. He was ordered to active duty on 26 September 1996 in an Active Guard Reserve status. He was promoted to master sergeant on 1 July 2004.
2. His DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) covering the period 4 October 2009 through 30 August 2010 shows he was assigned to the 336th FMC, Lake Charles, LA, in the rank of SGM. His primary MOS is shown as 36B.
3. On 1 February 2010, he was promoted to SGM effective 1 February 2010 in primary MOS 36B5O.
4. In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the AGR Promotion Analyst, Enlisted Personnel Management, HRC, Fort Knox, KY, on 10 February 2011. The advisory official states:
* after a review of the application, his request to adjust his DOR and effective date of promotion to 1 November 2009 cannot be supported as there were five authorizations and five SGM's in MOS 36B at that time
* however, he should have been promoted on 1 December 2009 when the inventory of SGM's dropped to four as a result of the reassignment of an MOS 36B SGM to an MOS-immaterial position
5. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal; however, he did not respond within the given time frame.
6. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotion and Reductions) prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. Paragraph 5-30 of this regulation states Soldiers will be promoted sequentially from the list to fill vacancies and promotions off the permanent recommended promotion list will not exceed the cumulative vacancies for that pay grade.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. He contends his promotion date should be 1 November 2009 based on the valid E-9 position in MOS 36B to which he was assigned on 10 September 2009 and based on the administrative error in the system. However, the advisory official states his DOR cannot be adjusted to 1 November 2009 because there were five authorizations and five SGM's in MOS 36B at that time. There is no evidence of record, and he did not provide any evidence to show an unauthorized individual was occupying one of the 36B positions.
2. The advisory opinion further states he should have been promoted on 1 December 2009 when the inventory of SGM's dropped to four as a result of the reassignment of an MOS 36B SGM to an MOS-immaterial position.
3. Based on the foregoing, it would be equitable to correct his military records to show his effective date and DOR for promotion to SGM in MOS 36B5O as 1 December 2009.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
____X___ ____X___ ___X____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was promoted to SGM with a DOR and effective date of 1 December 2009.
2. The Board further recommends the applicant be paid all back pay and allowances due as a result of this correction.
3. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to adjusting his DOR to 1 November 2009.
_____________X____________
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) AR20100017641
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100017641
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020993
The applicant requests correction of her date of rank (DOR) to major from 16 March 2010 to 10 September 2009. c. She received promotion orders on 3 June 2010 with a DOR of 16 March 2010. d. Her records are in error/unjust because she was not promoted upon signing into her new unit at Fort Belvoir, VA. 3. Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-9c, states a USAR AGR officer considered and selected by a mandatory promotion board but who cannot be promoted due to strength and/or position...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150012079
Her eligibility data is as follows: * USASMC graduate * BASD of 30 June 1986 * DOB of 8 September 1956 d. Based upon the criteria listed in MILPER Message Number 12-100 and Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 4-2a, she met the announced DOR, BASD, and other eligibility criteria prescribed by HRC for the FY2012 AGR SGM Selection and Training Board and should have been provided a promotion board file for consideration for promotion to SGM. The applicant claims she was denied promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018537
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100018537 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. HRC has since changed its position on the interpretation of the regulation, but unfortunately it was not in time to save his assignment or the 30 December 2009 promotion. The opinion concludes that the date the applicant was assigned to the higher position was the earlier of the two dates and thus correctly established his DOR as 7 June 2010.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009470
The applicant provided three UMRs, dated 2 June 2010, 24 August 2010, and 16 July 2011, which show: a. MSG CJ also stated that the applicant must complete the attached counseling and, by 27 May 2012, be reassigned to a valid position that meets COE and grade requirements or be subject to involuntary transfer to another unit, to the IRR, or elect retirement. (i) As a COE (MILTECH 365th) and in order to meet the senior grade overstrength guidance, she took a reduction in rank from SGM/E-9 to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018049
The advisory official stated the following: * the applicant was placed on the PPRL, which is managed by the servicing Regional Support Command (RSC) * as vacant positions are reported, the RSC identifies the first Soldier on the PPRL who meets the reported requirements of the position within the elected commuting distance * in no case will promotions be made to pay grade E-7 and above for Soldiers who are in an over-strength status * Soldiers who have not been promoted within 2 years from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020397
(2) Army Regulation 135-155, paragraph 4-11(f) states that if a promoted officer, within the first 6 months of promotion, is found to not be eligible for promotion on the promotion date, then the promotion will be delayed until the officer meets the requirements. 23 April 2010 applicant was informed that he must have a current APFT within the last year and his [APFT] showed flagged failed April 2010, this would hold up his promotion; c. 25 June 2010 the applicant stated his promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019274
The applicant's medical records and profiling documents are not available for review by the Board. To support its opinion, the advisory official provided a copy of a memorandum from the director of officer personnel management to the office of Reserve component promotions, dated 17 June 2009, requesting publication of promotion orders for the applicant to the rank of LTC with a DOR of 12 June 2009 based on assignment to a valid position of higher authority, effective 27 May 2009. This...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024543
The applicant requests to be reinstated to the rank of sergeant major (SGM)/pay grade E-9 with an effective date of 15 October 2008. The promotion orders were processed on 29 January 2009; therefore, the promotion was erroneous. Furthermore, the applicant was not the first Soldier on the list.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018430
His service record is void of evidence and he has not provided any evidence which shows he was unjustly blocked from occupying the CPT/O-3 70B slot. In order for the applicant to have been promoted to CPT prior to 6 February 2013, he must have met all of the requirements for a Medical Service Corps officer in AOC 70B. Since there was not a valid vacancy for him to be promoted into and he was not fully qualified in AOC 70B until 1 February 2013, he was not eligible to be promoted prior to 6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004001
He submitted various email exchange with his unit S-1, AMEDD career manager, and others that show: * 21 October 2008, his career manager advised him that his records would be considered by the January 2009 CPT AMEDD Reserve Components Board * 6 June 2009, his unit S-1 informed him he was not in a valid position and that he was assigned to the TTHS for medical reasons * 8 June 2009, he acknowledged the TTHS assignment but stated the medical issue had been resolved since the Department of...