BOARD DATE: 4 February 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130009718
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 sergeant major (SGM)/E-9.
2. The applicant states he found out that the service failed to process his security clearance in a timely manner which made him non-competitive or qualified for promotion to SGM with his peers.
3. The applicant provides the back page of Standard Form 312 (Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Having had prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 26 October 1998 and he held military occupational specialties in artillery and transportation.
2. On 31 August 2000, the USAR Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO, issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year letter).
3. On 1 January 2003, he was promoted to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and on 29 April 2004, he reenlisted in the USAR.
4. On 8 November 2006, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) published Orders C-11-635461 transferring him to the Retired Reserve, effective 8 November 2006. The orders listed his rank as MSG.
5. There is no indication in his records that confirms he was selected for promotion to SGM. Likewise, there are no orders in his records confirming such promotion.
6. He provides the back page of security non-disclosure agreement, dated 17 May 2005.
7. An advisory opinion was obtained on 23 October 2013 from HRC in the processing of this case. An HRC official stated the records available at HRC indicated the applicant did have the proper security clearance to meet the criteria for promotion eligibility. He was considered for promotion to SGM but he was not selected.
8. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion but he did not respond.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Each board considers all eligible noncommissioned officers (NCO) for promotion consideration, but it may only select a number within established selection constraints. The selection process is an extremely competitive process based on the "whole Soldier" concept. It is an unavoidable fact that some NCOs considered for promotion will not be selected. There are always more outstanding NCOs who are fully qualified to perform duty at the next higher grade, but who are not selected because of selection capability restrictions.
2. It is a well-known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection. This means any statements by the applicant regarding his non-selection are speculative at best. Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records that were considered by those boards that did not select the applicant it must be presumed that what the board did was correct. Since promotion selection boards are not authorized by law to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection of any NCO, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known. A non-selected NCO can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his overall record, when compared with the records of contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion.
3. Finally, the Army promotion system is based on performance, merit, and potential, not time in service and not on speculations. It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to SGM; however, it is a well known fact that not everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are promotion allocations. Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the time.
4. The applicant was simply not selected for promotion. After a comprehensive review of the evidence in his official record, his contention and argument, and other than his dissatisfaction, the applicant failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that his non-selection for promotion was a result of material error, inaccuracy, injustice, and/or even inequity.
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) AR20130009718
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130009718
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005924C070206
He based his request on the fact that two of the NCOs selected in his MOS were selected even through they were not graduates of the USASMA, and because he believed two of the promotion board members were biased against his selection. This RC promotion official states that promotion selection boards are governed by Army regulatory policy, and members are selected for their maturity, judgment and freedom from bias. While the applicant clearly believes he is better qualified than the Soldiers...
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 | CY2012 | 20120019015
(2) Paragraph 3-28b states senior enlisted promotions result when data is provided to the promotion authority that reflects requirements based on current and projected position vacancies; the promotion authority announces the convening date of the selection board, location and description of current and projected position vacancies, zones of consideration for promotion selection, and administrative instructions; personnel records of Soldiers within the zone of consideration are reviewed by...
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 | CY2004 | 20040011511C070208
These orders authorized the applicant’s promotion to MSG/E-8, effective and with a DOR of 1 December 2003. The applicant’s contention that his security clearance, and consequently the effective date of his promotion to MSG/E-8, were unduly delayed based on the false accusations of a female officer and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s Secret security clearance was not finalized until 4 November 2003, as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064810C070421
The opinion points out that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY2000 MSG Selection Board and was promoted to MSG with an effective date and DOR of 22 August 2001, the date his secret clearance was granted. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: Records show the applicant’s security clearance was completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016684
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military records as follows: * constructive service credit for active duty from 6 November 1997 (date erroneously discharged) to 29 July 2007 (date properly discharged) * consideration for promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 2. The Board recommended denial of the application that pertains to promoting him to the rank/grade of SGM/E-9; however, the Board recommended all state Army National Guard records and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022398
A memorandum from the commandant of the USASMA, dated 28 April 2008, shows a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) was prepared showing the applicant failed to achieve course standards and was dismissed from Phase I, NR-SMC effective 28 April 2008. It states that operational deferments will only be granted for unit deployments. There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he requested a course deferment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018306
Even after being determined fit for full duty, SSG S_____ waited for his clearance to be restored, yet was for all other purposes fit to perform in his MOS"; e. the applicant's file went before the promotion boards for the regularly convened SFC Promotion Boards for FY03, FY04, FY05, and FY06 and he was not selected for promotion due to the missing NCOERs; f. a recommendation to refer the case to a standby advisory board (STAB) will not remedy the injustice nor provide fitting relief because...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017151
Requests for promotion orders for ADOS Soldiers recommended for promotion by a TPU promotion selection board must be submitted to the appropriate RSC." The selection board convened on or about 7 August 2012 and considered Soldiers for promotion as shown below: * non-mobilized IRR, IMA, and Standby Reserve (Active List) Soldiers * mobilized IRR, IMA, and Standby Reserve (Active List) Soldiers to the ranks of SFC through SGM * ADOS Soldiers to the ranks of SSG through SGM that entered ADOS...