IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110011549 


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:

* Reinstatement to the 5 May 2008 Senior Enlisted Promotion/Sergeant Major Course (SMC) Selection List
* Promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 with an effective date of 1 July 2009
* Reimbursement of lost pay

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She has served in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and on active duty for 34 years.  She was selected for promotion to SGM at age 55 by the 70th Regional Readiness Command (RRC).  She was registered to attend the U.S. Army SGM Course (USASMC) in 2009 at age 57; but the reservation was erroneously cancelled and she was removed from the SGM promotion list.

	b.  A Soldier from her previous unit and now at the USAR Command (USARC) has been in positions to stop her promotion and change her military record.  He contacted the 70th RRC in May 2008 requesting that she be removed from the USASMC stating that she was too old.  Mandatory retirement for enlisted Reservists is age 60 and promotion consideration for deployed Reservist is age 57.  When she received notice of removal from the promotion list she contacted her higher headquarters but they refused to recognize special considerations for deployed Soldiers.  A congressional inquiry generated manufactured reasons and cited regulations for 2010.  An exception to policy for deployed Reservist was not applied to promotion consideration. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)
* Seven memoranda
* Three orders
* Ten pages of email
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile)
* DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form)
* Two military personnel messages
* An All Army Activities (ALARACT) message
* Pages 1 through 90 of Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), dated 20 March 2008
* Fifteen pages from Department of the Army Personnel Policy Guidance for Contingency Operations in Support of the Global War on Terrorism 
* Seven letters

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show she was born on 8 August 1952.  She enlisted in the USAR on 7 July 1976 and held military occupational specialty 42A (Human Resources Specialist).  

2.  She completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) on 21 July 1985.  She served through multiple reenlistments and/or extensions in staff and leadership positions and attained the rank/grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 on 15 October 1991.  

3.  She was ordered to active duty as a member of her USAR unit on 24 April 2008 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  She served in Iraq from 1 June 2008 to 12 April 2009.

4.  She was considered and selected for promotion to SGM by the 70th RRC Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Senior Enlisted Promotion/SMC Consideration Board which convened on 5 May 2008.  She was 55 years and 9 months of age at that time.

5.  On 8 July 2008, it was determined that she had been erroneously considered and recommended for promotion by the board.  As she was age 55 and she lacked the required NCO Education System (NCOES) course for promotion consideration to SGM which was completion of the USASMC; therefore, she had been ineligible for consideration by the promotion board, and her name was removed from the promotion list.  There was no regulatory guidance which allowed promotion consideration to SGM for deployed Reservists, who had not completed the required NCOES course (the SGM course) at age 57.  

6.  On 2 June 2009, she was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR.  She completed 1 year, 1 month, and 9 days of creditable active service during this period.

7.  A letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Headquarters, USARC, Fort McPherson, GA, dated 7 January 2011, responded to a Congressional inquiry on behalf of the applicant and stated the following:

	a.  In accordance with Army regulatory guidance, Soldiers who reached age 55 without NCOES completion for the next higher grade, or age 57 with NCOES completed for the next higher grade prior to the convening date of the board, are ineligible for consideration.  The applicant was considered for promotion in May 2008 and on 8 July 2008 it was determined she was erroneously considered for promotion because she lacked the required NCOES course.  She was administratively removed from the promotion selection list and notified of her removal.

	b.  On 10 September 2008, 8 October 2008, and 20 October 2008, she was notified she could request an exception to policy for the NCOES requirement through her chain of command to the Department of the Army, but she failed to do so.  In addition, her records indicate her last Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) was out of date and she failed the test.  This also made her ineligible for promotion consideration.

8.  The applicant provides an email, dated 28 July 2009, wherein a Human Resources Command - St Louis assistant told the applicant that her reservation for the non-resident course [at the USASMC] was cancelled because she exceeded the age limitation according to the eligibility criteria.  

9.  The applicant also provided an email, dated 23 February 2011, wherein, an official at the USASMC told the applicant that her records went to two standby promotion boards and she was not selected either time.  At the time she was mobilized with the 70th RRC, her records were erroneously boarded and she was selected for promotion; therefore, she was administratively removed from the promotion list.  She had not been eligible for promotion consideration because she was flagged for [exceeding the Army] height and weight standards and had already reached her 55th birthday, which also made her ineligible for the SGM Academy.  She had filed two Congressional complaints which were both answered, and the Staff Judge Advocate and USARC also provided her with the same answer; she was not eligible for promotion consideration.  She had been counseled by the USARC G-1 that she was ineligible for future promotion consideration and their office could not enroll her in the SGM course because of these facts.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 1-27a, in effect at the time, stated a Soldier must be a USASMC graduate for promotion to SGM.  Paragraph 1-27b stated Soldiers selected for promotion to SGM who are nongraduates of the SMC will be conditionally promoted.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 5-32, stated for promotion to SGM, Soldiers who reached age 55 without NCOES completion for the next higher grade or age 57 with NCOES completed for the next higher grade prior to the convening date of the board were ineligible for promotion consideration. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she should be promoted to the rank of SGM because she was erroneously removed from the FY 2008 Senior Enlisted Promotion List.  She also states her higher headquarters failed to recognize special considerations for deployed Soldiers.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was 55 years of age and was not an SMC graduate when she was erroneously considered for and selected for promotion by the FY 08 Senior Enlisted Promotion/SMC Consideration Board in May 2008.  In July 2008, the error was discovered and her name was removed from the promotion list.  

3.  Although the regulation in effect at the time stated Soldiers selected for promotion to SGM who are nongraduates of the SMC would be conditionally promoted, this only applied to Soldiers who were eligible for consideration by the board.  The applicant lacked the required NCOES course and she was age 55; therefore, she was ineligible for consideration by the board.  She could not be conditionally promoted and her name was properly removed from the promotion list.  There were no provisions in the governing regulation that stated deployed Reservists who were nongraduates of the SMC were eligible to be considered for promotion to SGM up to age 57.

4.  In view of the foregoing, she is not entitled to the requested relief.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ____x___  ____x___  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.



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20110011549



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110011549



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1