IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:	  10 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130020513 


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 staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 effective 1 October 2013.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  An error in placement on the promotion list caused him not to be promoted in October 2013.  He would like to be promoted to SSG in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program effective 1 October 2013.  He is on the permanent promotion recommended list (PPRL) and was eligible for promotion during that time, but improper placement on the PPRL resulted in no promotion.

	b.  He is an AGR Soldier and he was considered by an AGR promotion board in June.  His unit submitted his packet to the wrong PPRL for troop program unit (TPU) Soldiers.  He was issued TPU promotion orders, but he is an AGR Soldier and cannot use these promotion orders.  He is not at fault and he has kept his chain of command informed, as well as the Inspector General (IG), and they have done all they could.

	c.  He is now on the AGR PPRL where he should be, but he was not promoted earlier because of others' mistakes.  He filed a formal IG complaint and was told that U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) policy dictates that they do not backdate promotions for AGR Soldiers.

	d.  He has personal experience and knows that active duty Soldier promotions would have been backdated.  This is not a fair practice in the AGR Program.  He is not at fault, but he feels cheated because of others' mistakes.

3.  The applicant provides:

* promotion orders
* revocation orders
* email correspondence
* DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request)
* inquiry from a Member of Congress, dated 25 March 2014

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior active service in the Regular Army, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 28 April 2011 for a period of 4 years and 12 weeks in pay grade E-5.  He was discharged from the Army National Guard and he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 10 May 2012 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty in an AGR status on 28 June 2012.

2.  Headquarters, 63d Regional Support Command (RSC), 
Orders 13-297-00066, dated 24 October 2013, show he was promoted to SSG effective 1 November 2013.  These orders were revoked by Headquarters, 63d RSC, Orders 13-304-00036, dated 31 October 2013.

3.  There is no evidence showing he has since been promoted to SSG.

4.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Department of the Army Promotions, HRC, Fort Knox, KY.  The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for the following reasons:

	a.  The records available to the Junior Enlisted Promotions section indicate the applicant was erroneously added to the Army Reserve TPU PPRL by the 63d RSC.  As a result, he was erroneously promoted to the rank of SSG effective 1 November 2013 in the AGR Management Information System (AGRMIS).

	b.  His promotion orders were revoked on 24 October 2013, but the 63d RSC did not restore the applicant's rank to sergeant (SGT) in AGRMIS.  As a result, he was removed from the AGR SSG PPRL.

	c.  The applicant would have been selected for promotion to SSG effective 1 December 2013.

5.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  He responded on 10 March 2014 and stated:

	a.  He does not agree with the advisory opinion.  He has contacted HRC about the situation to gain further understanding, but he is still being punished for his command's mistakes, not his.  He understands the policy at HRC, but questions how this is his fault.  He has done everything correctly and now, not only is he being punished for being in this unit, but it affects his career for years to come.  He will be passed by at least one board for his next promotion due to this.

	b.  He told an HRC official that policy for human error needs to be put into place.  HRC even stated he would have been selected for promotion to SSG on 1 December 2013.  HRC places the blame on his command, but HRC is at fault because the HRC Force Alignment Division removed him from the AGR SSG PPRL.

	c.  HRC was aware of the situation in November, but he was still passed over for promotion.  The HRC personnel claim that his higher headquarters did not restore his rank in AGRMIS, but the truth is it was recorded in the Total Army Personnel Database-Reserve.  AGRMIS did not record him as an SSG until early January 2014.  All of these errors are out of his control, but again the Soldier suffers, not the command.  Nothing has changed in the command to keep this from happening again.

	d.  The advisory opinion states he was passed over in December because AGRMIS showed he was promoted in November.  There is no way HRC previously saw that entry because it was updated after he was removed from the AGR SSG PPRL.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows, through no fault of the applicant:

* his name was erroneously added to the Army Reserve TPU PPRL by HRC
* he was erroneously promoted to SSG effective 1 November 2013 in AGRMIS by HRC
* the promotion orders were revoked
* HRC officials did not correct his rank to SGT in AGRMIS and he was removed from the AGR SSG PPRL by HRC

2.  Since the advisory official states the applicant would have been selected for promotion to SSG effective 1 December 2013, it appears he was fully eligible for promotion.  Therefore, it would be equitable to correct his records to show he was promoted to SSG effective 1 December 2013.

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:

	a.  showing he was promoted to SSG effective 1 December 2013 and

	b.  paying him any monies due as a result of this correction.

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 promotion to SSG effective 1 October 2013.



      __________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)                                         AR20130020513



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130020513



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1