IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 May 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120018852
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 promotion to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8.
2. The applicant states his records should be reviewed for promotion for the years 2000 and 2001. He claims his commanders and senior noncommissioned officers believe that an error occurred that prevented his advancement. He indicates he heard rumors from Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) personnel that someone dropped the ball and that a paperwork error prevented his consideration for promotion.
3. The applicant provides military performance documents from his record in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicants Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File, contains orders confirming the applicant was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 on 1 December 1996. The record is void of any indication that the applicant was ever denied promotion consideration for MSG/E-8.
3. The record does show that in April 2002 the applicant was relieved from his duties as an equal opportunity advisor and received a relief-for-cause noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER). The senior rater, a major, indicated the applicant was relieved of his duties based on stated racist beliefs that were in conflict with Army Values and recommended the applicant not be promoted.
4. The applicant appealed the relief-for-cause report on 21 November 2002, and on 27 March 2003, the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) determined the evidence did not justify altering or withdrawing the report.
5. On 31 August 2004, the applicant was honorably retired, in the grade of SFC/E-7, after completing 20 years and 4 months of active duty service.
6. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions) prescribes the Army's enlisted promotion policy. Chapter 5 contains guidance on promotion to sergeant first class/master sergeant/sergeant major-command sergeant major and paragraph 5-33 contains guidance on promotion reconsideration by an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (STAB). It states, in pertinent part, that STABs are convened to consider records not reviewed by a regular board and/or that were not properly constituted because of material error when reviewed by the regular board
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants request for promotion to MSG/E-8 has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record and independent evidence submitted by the applicant fails to show the applicant was not considered for promotion to MSG/E-8 by a regular promotion board or that his record contained a material error that would support reconsideration for promotion for the years 2000 and 2001.
3. In view of the foregoing, absent any evidence of error or injustice in the promotion consideration process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting 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) AR20120018852
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120018852
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006513
Therefore, notwithstanding the ESRB determination that promotion reconsideration was not applicable, it is concluded that it would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice to grant an exception to policy that would allow the applicants record to be placed before a STAB, for promotion reconsideration to MSG using the criteria used by all MSG promotion selection boards that considered the applicant for promotion while the invalid NCOER was on file in his OMPF. If the STAB selects the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008880
The applicant states: * he was fully qualified to be considered for promotion by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 MSG Promotion Selection Board; however, he was not considered for promotion to MSG because he was under an erroneous flagging action * he was approved for consideration by the next Department of the Army (DA) Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (STAB), which convened 29 January 2008 * he strongly believes the STAB selected him for promotion; however, since the erroneous flag was not removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013263
The evidence of record shows the governing Army regulation provides that 75 days are allowed for processing annual NCOERs after the Thru date. The evidence of record shows the applicant was due a mandatory annual report with a Thru date of 30 July 2009. The evidence of record shows that an NCOER received after the specified cut-off date that does not get posted to the board file will not be a basis for STAB consideration.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711786
On 18 July 1995, his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension shows his date of entry on current enlistment was 8 November 1989 for a 6 year period.) In an opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notes that, based on the absence of the NCO-ER for ending period October 1991, the applicant’s records will be made available for consideration by the May 1998 Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under the 1993 criteria. The applicant was not granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012030
Requests received after 24 September 2010 will be processed in the order received but may not appear before the board; (8) paragraph 9b states, "In order to guarantee processing prior to board, all mandatory or optional NCOER's must be received, error free, in the Evaluation Reports Branch, HRC, not later than by close of business on 1 October 2010"; e. an undated ATRRS Request for Cancellation/Substitution Form showing his 1SG Course was cancelled because of his flag; f. an email from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006308
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 December 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140006308 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Recently, the Department of the Army assisted him in obtaining 8 awards, including the Silver Star, earned in Vietnam. A centralized promotion system has been in effect for promotion of enlisted Soldiers since 1 January 1969 for SGM, 1 March 1969 for MSG, and 1 June 1970 for SFC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015618
In support of her previous application, she provided an e-mail from HRC, dated 1 February 2012, stating HRC records showed she had been considered but not selected for promotion to MSG by the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 MSG PSB's. In support of her previous application, she provided several statements regarding her complaints and documents related to outcomes of various investigations by several different Army agencies, including command and Department of the Army Headquarters (HQDA)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004368C070208
Counsel further states that while the applicant received his overdue promotion to SSG/E-6 and was selected for and promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB), he was unable to be considered for promotion to MSG/E-8 by the Calendar Year 2004 (CY 2004) MSG/E-8 Promotion Selection Board (PSB) because he had not completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). In a 17 October 2002 application to this Board, the applicant requested immediate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009910
The applicant requests promotion reconsideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) based on the criteria of the Calendar Years 2008 and 2009 (CY 08 and CY 09) Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 Promotion Boards. On 12 February 2009, the ASRB directed the report be removed from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); however, this was not done before the CY 09 Promotion Board convened and reviewed her record. Therefore, notwithstanding the ASRB's determination that promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019232
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his records by: * Removing a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 12 September 2008, from the restricted folder of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) * Reinstating him to the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08) Master Sergeant/Pay Grade (MSG/E-8) E-8 Promotion List * Promoting him to MSG/E-8 with original...