IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011041 


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:

	a.  his date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion for sergeant (SGT) to 1 September 2010 and

	b.  his DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 27 November 2012, to show he enlisted in pay grade E-5 rather than pay grade E-4.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He wants his 2012 promotion backdated to September 2010 based on the mistake of one noncommissioned officer (NCO) and the failure to do the right thing by another NCO.

	b.  In August 2010, he was considered and recommended for promotion, had the necessary points, and vacant positions were available in his unit.  At that time he was in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and for the remainder of that year and in 2011 he inquired as to his promotion orders status every drill weekend and periodically during the month between drills.  The response he was given each time was, "I have sent an inquiry and haven't received an answer; I have to follow the chain of command."

	c.  In October 2011, he was mobilized to Germany where he eventually addressed the issue with the Chief of Reserve Affairs.  It wasn't until then that he received any assistance with this issue and not until January 2012 that an SGT who handled his promotion packet wrote by email that she had made an error and his promotion recommendation was sent to the wrong people and he was never put on the Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL) as he should have been.  Had this SGT not made the error, he would have been promptly promoted.

	d.  At this time he was told that a vacant position no longer existed.  After the error was caught he received promotion orders in July 2012 and he was promoted in August 2012.  He was considered and selected in August 2010 and he would have been promoted in September 2010 had no mistakes been made.

	e.  He feels he did his part and he would already have been promoted with proper support from his chain of command.  This also caused a problem for him when he began the process for signing a Regular Army (RA) contract.  He made the recruiter well aware of his pending promotion and the recruiter said that when he received his promotion they would be able to resubmit or correct his DD Form 1966 that he signed earlier in July 2012.  There was a Military Personnel (MILPER) message supporting him signing an RA contract as an SGT for his military occupational specialty (MOS) 68Q (pharmacy specialist).  However, his recruiter did not make good on his word.  He got his chain of command involved and the final word received was if the MILPER message was still valid at time of his swearing in, the rank change could be honored at that point.  Neither his recruiter nor the first sergeant (1SG) was present for his swearing in to ensure this.  The MILPER message was still valid.

	f.  Again, he would not have had the issue and his DD Form 1966 would have already reflected SGT had his promotion been handled correctly in the first place.

	g.  His recruiter told him he had to ship from Germany and he could keep an eye on him and that based on the orders so would his family.  His recruiter was well aware that this would leave him with no income for 3 months and living on the German economy as his mobilization orders ended in August 2012 and he didn't ship until late November 2012.  His recruiter also knew he did not have a passport and that he was in Germany on military orders.  The recruiter's response was to keep his head down and not get in trouble.  He asked for temporary orders of some sort to provide for his family.  No matter how many times he inquired, the recruiter always responded he was looking into it.  His recruiter lied to him multiple times, to include telling him in front of his wife that they would ship together.  He didn't question the recruiter further, being that his orders said family travel was authorized at government expense, until he wanted to start setting his household goods and vehicle up to ship.  At that point the recruiter told him he never said that.

	h.  He challenged the recruiter on it in front of the other recruiters and recruits and the recruiter pulled him aside into the back room to apologize and could see where he might have misunderstood him; however, his wife and he did not misunderstand anything.  They back-planned and asked all the right questions; his answer was clear and to the point.  The recruiter said, "[D]on't worry about it, you're not in the Reserves any more, when you move your family moves with you."  This caused problems with his finances, his legal status in Germany, and the fact that his family's Status of Forces Agreement stamps were expiring the following month.  In December 2012, his church had to fly his family back stateside and he has yet to see new orders or reimbursement for the cost of the airfare.

	i.  He believes it would be just to correct his military records to reflect 1 September 2010 as his DOR for SGT and to correct his DD Form 1966.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* email
* mobilization orders
* promotion orders
* active duty orders

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 12 March 2008 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty on 2 October 2009 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.  Records show he was recommended for promotion to SGT in August 2010.  He was released from active duty on 1 October 2010.

2.  He was ordered to active duty on 14 October 2011 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.   He was promoted to SGT in MOS 68Q effective 1 August 2012.  He was released from active duty on 27 August 2012.

3.  He enlisted in the RA on 27 November 2012 for a period of 3 years in pay grade E-4.  His DD Form 1966, dated 27 November 2012, shows he enlisted in pay grade E-4 for MOS 68Q.

4.  Discharge orders, dated 4 December 2012, show he was honorably discharged from the USAR in pay grade E-4 effective 26 November 2012.

5.  He provided four letters of support from a captain, contractor, sergeant first class, and 1SG who attest:

* the applicant is an exceptional Soldier with an outstanding character
* he is helpful and eager to learn
* he is focused and dedicated with a very positive attitude
* he volunteers with the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts
* his warrior spirit and intellect are reflected in all his actions

6.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Management Division, U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC).  The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for the following reasons:

	a.  In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), Soldiers recommended for promotion to SGT and SSG are integrated onto an order of merit list called a PPRL.  The lists are managed by the servicing Regional Support Command (RSC) for the geographic region.  Then, as vacant positions are reported, the RSC will identify the first Soldier on the PPRL who meets the reported requirements of these positions within the MOS and elected commuting distance for promotion.

	b.  On 1 June 2011, the Army adopted a new promotion policy which required all previously-recommended Soldiers to submit documentation verifying promotion point scores on a new scoring system to the servicing RSC.  All Soldiers on the PPRL without a new DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) are considered to be in a non-promotable status until the required information has been received.

	c.  Records indicate the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGT in MOS 68Q by a promotion board in August 2010 and again in August 2011.  His information was integrated onto a PPRL managed by the 88th RSC.  His new DA Form 3355 was submitted on 6 January 2012, as required.  However, no positions within his MOS and commuting distance were reported.  On 29 March 2012 in response to a Congressional inquiry, a member of the USARC contacted the applicant's command to explain these policies in detail and recommended courses of action to assist him with his promotion.  As a result, he was promoted to SGT effective 1 August 2012.  Prior to that date, no positions within his MOS and elected commuting distance were reported.  Additionally, the applicant's enlistment at a lower grade in the RA is a contractual agreement; therefore, reduction orders were not issued.  He was discharged from the USAR without a reduction action and voluntarily contracted to enlist at a lower grade.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  He did not respond.

8.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA, USAR, and Army National Guard.  Paragraph 3-17 (Enlistment Pay Grades and Terms of Enlistment for RA Applicants with Prior Military Service) states applicants in grade E-5 and above must submit a formal request to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, for grade determination assignment eligibility if current MOS structure supports entry in a former primary MOS.  When an applicant was last separated from any component in the grade of E-5 and above and enlists within 48 months following separation, or is a current member of a Reserve Component, the enlistment grade will be E-5.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests correction of his DOR and effective date of promotion for SGT to 1 September 2010 because of mistakes made by NCO's in his unit.
 
2.  USARC records indicate:

* the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGT in August 2010 and August 2011
* his information was integrated onto a PPRL
* his new DA Form 3355 was submitted on 6 January 2012, but no positions within his MOS and commuting distance were reported
* he was promoted to SGT effective 1 August 2012 – prior to that date no positions within his MOS and elected commuting distance were reported

3.  He provided insufficient evidence to show he could have been promoted into an available position between August 1010 and June 2011.

4.  Notwithstanding the 2010 and 2011 recommendations for promotion to SGT, and in accordance with Army promotion policy, it appears the applicant was considered to be in a non-promotable status from June 2011 until his DA Form 3355 was submitted on 6 January 2012.  Further, there were no positions within his MOS and commuting distance prior to his promotion date on 1 August 2012.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base granting his request to amend his DOR and effective date of promotion for SGT.

5.  His request to correct his rank on his DD Form 1966, dated 27 November 2012, to show SGT appears to have merit.  The evidence shows he was 


promoted to SGT on 1 August 2012 in the USAR in MOS 68Q and he enlisted in the RA on 27 November 2012 for MOS 68Q.  

6.  His USAR discharge orders showed his grade as E-4, and that is presumably why he was enlisted in the RA as an E-4.  However, the USAR advisory opinion acknowledged that he was discharged from the USAR without a reduction action.

7.  The governing regulation states the enlistment grade will be E-5 if the current MOS structure supports entry in a former primary MOS and the applicant was last separated from any component in the grade of E-5 and enlists within 48 months following separation or is a current member of a Reserve Component.  

8.  The applicant had been promoted to SGT in MOS 68Q, and his DD Form 1966 shows he was enlisted in the RA in MOS 68Q.  Therefore, notwithstanding the advisory opinion, it would be appropriate to amend his DD Form 1966 to show he enlisted in pay grade E-5.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X___  ____X___  ___X__ _  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 1966, dated 27 November 2012, to show he enlisted in the RA in pay grade E-5 and to pay him back pay and allowances as an E-5 effective that date.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so 


much of the application that pertains to amending his DOR and effective date of promotion for SGT to 1 September 2010.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20130011041



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011041



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1