IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 April 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120017835 


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, reinstatement on the sergeant/staff sergeant (SGT/SSG) Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL).  

2.  The applicant states:

* he was notified by his unit command sergeant major (CSM) of the upcoming promotion board that convened on 2 September 2011
* he was also notified in writing that since he was in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program, his physical appearance before the promotion board was not required
* he submitted all the necessary documents prior to the suspense date of 22 August 2011 and awaited notification from the board
* his name was added to the SGT/SSG Report of Promotion Board Proceedings that was forwarded to the Regional Support Command (RSC)
* the RSC returned this report due to errors with signatures, appointment memoranda, and other administrative issues
* when the report was ultimately returned to the RSC and officials found out he did not physically appear before the promotion board they took his name off the list
* had the notification document not specifically indicated that he was not physically required to appear before the board he would have appeared in person
* the 88th RSC's decision to remove his name from the list is a violation of the notification memorandum
* not only is his promotion affected, he will reach his retention control point (RCP) and be forced to separate from the AGR program
* he continuously communicated with various officials in his chain of command in an effort to resolve this issue to no avail

3.  The applicant provides:

* Memorandum, dated 22 August 2011, Subject: 6250th U.S. Army Hospital Junior Enlisted Selection Board Consideration to SGT/SSG
* Report of Promotion Board Proceedings to SGT or SSG
* Locally-produced excel worksheets titled PPRL
* Approval memorandum of the recommended list
* Appointment memorandum of the CSM as a promotion authority
* Letter of lateness for the September 2011 Junior Enlisted Board
* Multiple DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) 
* Multiple DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)
* Certificate of training
* Extensive email exchanged with various officials

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) from November 1983 to August 1987, USMC Reserve from August 1987 to September 1989, and the USAR from November 1993 to November 1994, he enlisted in the USAR on 10 September 1999.  He served through multiple reenlistments in military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist).

2.  He entered active duty in the AGR program on 26 January 2003 and he was promoted to SGT on 1 November 2003.  His most recent reenlistment was on 17 April 2007 for 6 years, thus establishing his expiration term of service (ETS) date as 17 April 2013.

3.  He served with various units of the USAR and most recently in May 2009, he was assigned to the 7215th Medical Support Unit, Aurora, CO, a subordinate element of the 5502d USAR Hospital, supported by the 6250th U.S. Army Hospital (USAH), located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA.  The unit was serviced by 88th RSC, Fort McCoy, WI.  

4.  On 22 August 2011, a memorandum from the 6250th USAH authenticated by CSM GLM announced that the 6250th USAH would convene a Junior Enlisted 
Promotion/Selection Board to consider promotion packets for eligible USAR and AGR Soldiers who met the minimum eligibility requirements for promotion to SGT or SSG.  The memorandum stated "AGR Soldiers will NOT be required to appear before the board." 

5.  On 10 September 2011, the promotion board convened and reviewed records of Soldiers considered.  The Board President, CSM GLM, authenticated the Report of Promotion Board Proceedings and attached an enclosure that confirms three Soldiers were recommended for promotion to SSG and the applicant was among those Soldiers.  This report further states "recommend Soldiers listed on Enclosure 1 be integrated on the PPRL." 

6.  On 12 September 2011, by memorandum, the Commander, 6250th USAH, 
Colonel (COL) ECH, reviewed the Report of Promotion Board Proceedings and approved the names of the Soldiers recommended for promotion to SGT/SSG.  

7.  It appears the Report of Promotion Board Proceedings were not sent to the 88th RSC for processing until later the following year (nearly 6 months later).  As such, on 1 and 4 March 2012, the 6250th USAH commander, COL ECH, published two memoranda:

	a.  A memorandum, dated 1 March 2012, wherein the commander of the 6250th USAH, COL ECH, appointed CSM GLM as the promotion authority for the Junior Enlisted Promotion Boards. 

	b.  A memorandum of lateness, dated 4 March 2012, wherein the commander of the 6250th USAH, COL ECH, stated the results of the 10 September 2011 Junior Enlisted Promotion Board that was held by the 6250th USAH were being submitted late due to an administrative oversight.  They were rejected due to a signature error but the error had now been corrected.  COL ECH requested the Soldier's packets be accepted and processed for placement on the PPRL. 

8.  The applicant began a series of emails with various officials – including the Staff Judge Advocate, 6250th USAH, the human resources sergeants, 88th RSC, the Army Reserve Personnel Actions Center, and others – in an attempt to establish whether he was on the PPRL.  None of the emails provide a clear answer. 

9.  According to his current chain of command he appeared before the August 2012 Junior Enlisted Promotion/Selection Board but he was neither selected nor recommended for promotion to SSG. 

10.  On 9 January 2013, by a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) the applicant requested release from active duty with an effective date of 16 April 2013.  He stated that his ETS date was 16 April 2013 and he was unable to reenlist because he had not made SSG/E-6 by his RCP.

11.  On 11 March 2013, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, published official orders discharging him from the USAR AGR effective 16 April 2013 in accordance with paragraph 5-15 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Administrative Separations). 

12.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Department of the Army Promotions, dated 17January 2013, in the processing of this case.  This official recommended denial of the applicant's request.  He stated in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reduction), paragraphs 3-1, 3-2, and 3-13, and in accordance with Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 
12-242 (Conducting Semi-Centralized Promotion Boards and Processing Results of the Promotion Board) and MILPER Message 12-190 (Managing Semi-Centralized Promotions), Active Army and USAR AGR Soldiers are required to physically appear before promotion boards to be recommended for promotion.  An exception to policy must be approved by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Director of Military Personnel Management prior to the promotion board.  

13.  The applicant responded to the advisory opinion on 22 February 2013.  He stated that he was fully qualified when his promotion packet went before the promotion board and the board recommended him for promotion to SSG.  His promotion was withdrawn later because he failed to appear before the promotion board.  He admits that he did not appear before the board because he was explicitly told his appearance was not necessary.  He took the notification memorandum that advised him that he was not required to appear before the board at face value.  This notification memorandum was the only reason he did not appear before the promotion board.  

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 3-1 states field-grade commanders in units authorized a commander in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher have promotion authority to the grades of SGT and SSG; however, the promotion branch maintains the recommended list and issues the orders.  Promotion to SGT and SSG are executed in a semi-centralized manner.  Field operations will handle board appearance, promotion point calculation, promotion list maintenance, and final execution of promotions that occur in the field in a decentralized manner.  Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) operations will handle promotion cutoff scores and the monthly SGT/SSG promotion selection by-name list, which are determined and announced monthly.

	b.  Paragraph 3-2 states the Battalion HR office specialist will prepare the unit enlisted promotion report and forward it to the unit commander to select Soldiers for board appearance to SGT/SSG; it will then be returned to the Battalion HR specialist.  HRC will send an eligibility/ineligibility listing for USAR Soldiers on or about the first of the month.

	c.  Paragraph 3-13 states the promotion board will be conducted by the 15th of every month.  The boards will use question and answer format only.  Soldiers will not be required to perform hands-on tasks.

15.  MILPER Message 12-242, dated 31 July 2012, states a promotion board will be convened by the promotion authority.  Wherever practical, boards will be conducted at battalion or similar level.  As an exception provision, when the operational environment dictates, the promotion authority may seek authorization from HQDA, G-1 to rely solely on the recommendation of the Battalion CSM – who can validate the recommendations based on one-on-one interaction with the recommended Soldier.  The intent of this exception is to mitigate excessive risk on the battlefield and to ensure Soldiers are not placed in harm's way solely to satisfy an administrative requirement.  Soldiers recommended for promotion will appear in person before the board. 

16.  MILPER Message12-190, dated 22 June 2012, states for Active Component and USAR AGR Soldiers, a physical appearance before a promotion board is required. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was fully qualified for promotion to SSG and was notified in August 2011 of an upcoming promotion board at the battalion level to convene in September 2011.  For unknown reasons, the notification memorandum notified the applicant that as an AGR Soldier his personal appearance before the promotion board was not required.  As such, he did not appear before the promotion board.

2.  Despite the error by the battalion CSM and the promotion approval authority, the applicant's name was added to the Report of Promotion Board Proceedings to SGT/SSG that was forwarded to the servicing RSC.  The RSC appears to have discovered several inconsistencies and/or administrative errors and rejected the report.  
3.  The promotion approval authority corrected the errors and returned the Report of Promotion Board Proceedings to SGT/SSG – albeit 6 months later.  Upon receipt, the RSC discovered that contrary to the governing regulation, the applicant never appeared before the promotion board.  Therefore, his name was never added to the PPRL.  

4.  The applicant's selection by the September 2011 board was in error and the error was corrected.  It appears the applicant's chain of command recognized the error and recommended him for consideration by the August 2012 promotion board.  He appeared in person this time but he was neither selected nor recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6.  

5.  There is insufficient evidence to show the applicant suffered an injustice in this case.  As an HR specialist, working in the same office that processes promotion packets, he knew or should have known of the requirement to personally appear before a promotion board.  His chain of command failed to properly advise him, but he also failed to exercise due diligence.  

6.  Since he never appeared before the first promotion board and since he failed selection by the second promotion board, there is insufficient evidence to support his contention that he should be reinstated on the PPRL.

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)                                         AR20120017835



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017835



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1