IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004914 


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 correction of her records to show she was promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5.

2.  The applicant states she was hired in October 2009 into an E-5, 42A (Military Technician (MT)) position.  She completed training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resource Specialist) in January 2011 and returned to the unit anticipating she would be promoted.

   a.  Upon returning to the unit she learned that she had been moved out of the E-5 position and another Soldier (holding pay grade E-4) was filling the position.
It was explained to her that she could not be promoted because there were no "true" E-5 vacancies in the unit.

   b.  On 10 June 2011, in preparation for the promotion board, she submitted an AGO Form 232 (Advance Declinations) and indicated that she was willing to travel 50 miles (to a unit) from her home of record (HOR) for promotion.  In March 2012, it was brought to her attention that the promotion list indicated her declination status as "OU" (Own Unit), meaning that she only wanted to be considered for promotion in her unit of assignment.

   c.  She brought the matter to the attention of the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of the Enlisted Promotion Section.  A review of her AGO Form 232 revealed that her election to travel 50 miles and initials were altered using "white-out.”  The election was changed to indicate she only wanted to be considered in her current unit of assignment and the election was initialed, but not by her.  With the assistance of the Inspector General (IG), it took about 6 months to get the matter corrected.

   d.  She states that she cannot determine how many opportunities there could have been for her to be promoted during the 6-month period if units had known she was willing to travel in order to be promoted.

   e.  Then, in August 2012, she received an email message that another E-4 was being promoted to E-5 in a 42A position, even though he had fewer promotion points than her and he was ineligible because he held MOS 68P (Radiology Specialist).

   f.  Despite bringing all of these matters to the attention of those in her chain of supervision/command, nothing has been done.  She requests retroactive promotion to grade E-5 effective 1 October 2011.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following documents:

* three AGO Forms 232
* Enlisted Promotion Point Worksheet
* 2011 Career Progression MOS (CPMOS) Promotion Points List
* IG Action Request
* two memoranda written by the applicant

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.   The applicant had prior honorable enlisted service in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 20 May 2003 through 25 August 2005 and in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) from 26 August 2005 through 29 August 2006.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Alabama ARNG (ALARNG) on 30 August 2006 in the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4.

3.  Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), Alabama National Guard, Montgomery, AL, 
Orders 121-523, dated 30 April 2012, withdrew primary MOS (PMOS) 09R1O (Trainee) and awarded the applicant PMOS 42A1O.

4.  In support of her application, the applicant provides the following documents:

   a.  AGO Form 232, dated 10 June 2011, that shows the applicant indicated with her initials, "I will travel 50 miles for promotion from my HOR."

   b.  Enlisted Promotion Point Worksheet, dated 10 June 2011, that shows the applicant indicated with her signature that she had verified her promotion point information.
   
   c.  AGO Form 232, dated 10 June 2011, that shows the option, "I only want to be considered in my current unit of assignment" with the initials "NW."  The option, "I will travel ____ miles for promotion from my HOR,” along with the line for the individual's initials, appears to have been altered to delete the entries.

   d.  2011 CPMOS Promotion Points List (Grade E-4 to E-5), dated 1 October 2011, that shows:

    	(1)  the applicant was recommended for promotion to grade E-5 in her PMOS 42A in CPMOS 42A with 556 points, her status was listed as MT, and she elected to be promoted in her unit.

    	(2)  SPC Marco M. L--- was recommended for promotion to grade E-5 in his PMOS 42A in CPMOS 68G with 523 points, his status was listed as Active Guard Reserve (AGR), and there is no indication of any declination options.

   e.  JFHQ, Alabama National Guard, Montgomery, AL, memorandum, dated 19 March 2012, subject:  Declination Page Correction, that shows the applicant requested correction of her AGO Form 232, dated 10 June 2011, and the current CPMOS Promotion Points List (Grade E-4 to E-5) to show she elected the option, 
"I will travel 50 miles for promotion from my HOR."
   
   f.  DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request), dated 13 April 2012, that shows the applicant requested assistance in correcting her election option for promotion.

   g.  AGO Form 232, dated 23 April 2012, that shows the applicant indicated with her initials, "I will travel 50 miles for promotion from my HOR."

   h.  JFHQ, Alabama National Guard, Montgomery, AL, memorandum, dated 17 September 2012, subject:  Administrative Error, that shows the applicant requested the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-1, ALARNG, investigate the circumstances surrounding her promotion status to determine if she would have been promoted during the period that her promotion status was in error and, if so, retroactive promotion to grade E-5.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB), Arlington, VA.

	a.  The advisory official recommends the applicant's request be denied.
   b.  The advisory official confirmed that the ALARNG acknowledged there was an error on the applicant's AGO Form 232, dated 10 June 2011.  However, it was corrected and the error did not affect the applicant's sequence on the promotion list nor did it prevent the applicant from being promoted to E-5.

   c.  The Soldier that the applicant refers to was in the AGR program, held MOS 42A, and was promoted into a SGT/E-5 AGR vacancy.  The applicant was a technician, and an MT cannot be promoted into an AGR vacancy.  In addition, the applicant was not authorized to be assigned into the vacant AGR position because she was a traditional (M-Day) Soldier.

   d.  The applicant's case was reviewed by the Enlisted Policy Branch and the Appeals and Analysis Section at NGB.  It is recommended that no administrative relief be granted in the applicant's case.  The ALARNG concurs with this recommendation.

6.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond; however, a response was not received.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), chapter 7 (Enlisted Promotion and Reduction of ARNG Personnel), prescribes policies and procedures to advance, promote, laterally appoint, and administratively reduce ARNG and ARNGUS enlisted Soldiers, except those included in the end strength of the Active Army (AA) and who are covered by the AA promotion system.

   a.  Paragraph 7-38 provides instructions to print a promotion list by MOS for each grade with the information specified by the State Military Personnel Management Office (MPMO) and distribute a copy to each unit, each State headquarters director, and each State headquarters detachment except the Selective Service section.  The minimum information on a promotion list will be the Soldier's name, promotion or CPMOS, promotion points, and a code to determine M-Day, technician, or AGR status.

   b.  Paragraph 7-39 shows the State MPMO will, in concert with the State Human Resource Office (HRO), determine the methods to request, assign and promote Soldiers, including those who are MTs and AGR, to available vacancies throughout the State in promotion sequence using the guidance in this paragraph and in paragraph 7–40 (Selecting Soldiers for promotion lists).

   c.  Paragraph 7-40 provides that Soldiers will be offered assignment to available vacancies for which they are eligible and available starting with the lowest promotion sequence number (having the most points) within each CPMOS and continuing until the selection objective is exhausted, all vacancies are filled, or the list expires.  AGR Soldiers only compete against other AGR Soldiers within the same CPMOS.  Traditional (M-Day) Soldiers compete for vacancies with other M-Day Soldiers, to include MTs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that information in her promotion packet was altered without her consent, which caused her not to be promoted to grade E-5.  Therefore she should be retroactively promoted to grade E-5 with all back pay and allowances.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's 10 June 2011 AGO Form 232 was altered, which resulted in her being placed on the 2011 CPMOS Enlisted Promotion List with an erroneous declination election.

   a.  The evidence of record also shows that the Soldier whom the applicant refers to in her application was properly promoted into an AGR position.  

   b.  The evidence of record further shows the applicant was an MT and M-Day Soldier and, therefore, ineligible to be promoted into the AGR position.

   c.  In addition, the ALARNG and NGB conducted a thorough review of the applicant's case and failed to find any evidence that the error in her promotion status affected her promotion points or sequence on the promotion list.  More importantly, it did not prevent the applicant from being promoted to E-5.  The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence that would overcome their findings.

   d.  In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant's request.

3.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, there is no basis for correcting the applicant's records to show she was retroactively promoted to grade of E-5.

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)                                         AR20130004914



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004914



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1