IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 19 February 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018591
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 the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2012.
2. The applicant states she made the cutoff score to SGT on 1 March 2012. She did not have a DA Form 268 (Suspension of Favorable Action (FLAG)) filed against her and she was not pending any adverse action. Her unit failed to promote her on 1 March 2012.
3. The applicant provides a memorandum and a Headquarters (HQ), Department of the Army (DA) Monthly SGT/staff sergeant (SSG) Promotion Selection Name List.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is an active duty Regular Army specialist (SPC)/E-4 and she holds military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist). She was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX.
2. Her record is void of any evidence that shows she was ever promoted to SGT. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding why she was not promoted are not available for review with this case
3. The applicant provides a memorandum, dated 23 February 2012, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), wherein it shows the DA promotion point cutoff scores for 1 March 2012 to SGT in MOS 42A was 600 points in the primary zone (PZ) and 633 points in the secondary zone (SZ).
4. She also provides a HQDA Monthly SGT/SSG Promotion Selection Name List (Selected for 1 March 2012), as of 24 February 2012. This list contains her name and stated, "The following
have been selected for promotion for 1 March 2012. They should contact their Battalion S1 or Military Personnel Division to determine if they are qualified fro promotion on 1 March 2012.
5. A review of her records shows that on 7 February 2013 the applicant called HRC to inquire about her not getting promoted to SGT. The applicant stated she had been flagged for an investigation at the time she made the cutoff score for promotion and she was later denied the promotion for unknown reasons (emphasis added). She was instructed to consult her chain of command at the battalion level.
6. In the processing of this case, on 5 December 2013, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, DA Promotions, HRC. The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request and stated the applicant made the 1 March 2012 HQDA by-name list but was never promoted in the Enlisted Distribution Assignment System. She was removed from the promotion selection list in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) which states removal will be effective the 1st day of the 13th month following the date the Soldier was placed on the promotion selection by-name list.
7. On 19 November 2013, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. She did not respond.
8. Several attempts were made to contact members of the applicant's chain of command to verify why she was not promoted; however, they failed to respond.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends she should be promoted to SGT with a DOR of 1 March 2012.
2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant made the by-name promotion list to SGT on 1 March 2012 and, based on her own admission, she was not promoted at that time because she was flagged pending an investigation. Her record is void of the specific facts and circumstances showing why she was never promoted to SGT and was subsequently removed from the promotion list.
3. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence or argument that supports her contention that she should be promoted to SGT with a DOR of 1 March 2012. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that what her unit did in this case was correct and she was properly not promoted to SGT and removed from the SGT/E-5 promotion by-name selection list.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant 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) AR20130018591
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130018591
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005350
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to correct his record to show he was promoted to the rank/pay grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 July 2013 instead of 1 December 2013. The applicant states, in effect, on 2 May 2013, he appeared before the promotion board and was recommended for promotion to the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5. a. Paragraph 5a states "Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the ARC process...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019751
The applicant provides: * a memorandum from her previous unit commander, recommending she receive 150 duty performance points for her battalion's June 2010 semi-centralized promotion board * the supporting documentation that substantiates her promotion board administrative points * a memorandum from the President of the Board, Headquarters, Special Troops Battalion, I Corps, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, dated 2 June 2010, subject: Promotion Board Proceedings for Promotion to SGT and Staff...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001066
Soldiers flagged for adverse action will be reintegrated by the commander onto the recommended list if the case is closed favorably (provided otherwise qualified) without re-appearance before a promotion board. The applicant contends her record should be corrected to show she was promoted to the rank of SGT effective 1 April 2014 instead of 1 January 2015. The INSCOM IG's findings suggest the applicant's command failed to reintegrate her on the PSL as a result of incorrect information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000141
The applicant states, in effect, he went before a promotion board for SGT on 2 May 2013. a. Paragraph 5a states "Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the Administrative Records Corrections (ARC) process if he/he would have made the DA promotion point cutoff score, but was in a suspension of favorable action status and he/he was exonerated, the case was closed favorably, or a FLAG for adverse action was removed, provided the Soldier was otherwise qualified." While...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012279
He provided a memorandum from the 191st CSSB, dated 27 December 2012, subject: Promotion Board Proceedings for Promotion to SGT and SSG, recommending the applicant for promotion to SGT. HRC memorandum for U.S. Army Promotion Work Centers, dated 22 February 2013, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 March 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues, announcing promotion point cutoff scores for 1 March 2013. a. He provided a copy of his email to HRC, dated 3 June 2013,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000209
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 effective 1 August 2013 and all back pay due as a result. The applicant provides: * four promotion point worksheets (PPW) Unofficial Copy * an HRC memorandum, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 August 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active Army (AA) * a memorandum, subject: Request an Administrative Records Correction (ARC) for [Applicant], issued by Headquarters, 532nd...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023921
The applicant requests correction of her record to show she was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 2011. The applicant states her promotion packet was inadvertently submitted to the wrong personnel for processing and as a result, it was not processed in time for her to be incorporated onto the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) promotion standing list in the August/September timeframe which would have qualified her to be promoted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006284
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was promoted and subsequently retired in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6. He provides a memorandum, dated 14 November 2008, that indicates: * a promotion board convened on 14 November 2008 to review records and interview personnel for promotion to SGT and SSG * he was recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 11B * the list of Soldiers recommended for promotion, including the applicant's name, be integrated into the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011270
The applicant states, in effect: * he is a wounded warrior, serving at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) * he appeared before the SSG promotion board on 2 August 2012 and was recommended for promotion by the board with a total of 365 points * his points were inaccurately calculated, as the promotions clerk erroneously omitted 19 months of deployment service, equaling 38 points, and an additional 54 points from across other categories * after the August 2012 SSG promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014904
The applicant requests: * correction of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) to reflect the correct date and number of promotion points to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * retroactive promotion to SGT/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 June 2011 2. However, as of 1 May 2011, the applicant was recorded as having 562 promotion points. Therefore, he cannot be promoted.