IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 12 May 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140006360
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 master sergeant (MSG), E-8.
2. The applicant states
* between 2009 and 2012, her name was one of the top three names on the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) Promotion List but there were no promotion slots available during that time
* she left her Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position to accept Active Duty Operational Support (ADOS) orders on 3 February 2012 which placed her back in a traditional (troop program unit) status
* when it appeared that there would not be any forthcoming promotion, she elected to apply for sanctuary status to complete her period of service for retirement purposes
* if she had been properly promoted she would have agreed to the additional service requirements to accept that promotion
3. The applicant provides copies of
* pages 10 -11 of Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
* 2 February 2012 active duty orders
* a 2012 OKARNG promotion list
* 10 pages of email correspondence
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant, an OKARNG sergeant first class (SFC) had over 15 years of prior active service and inactive service in an AGR position from 4 December 2005 through 2 February 2012.
2. She was released from her AGR position to accept an ADOS assignment from 3 February through 30 September 2012.
3. The applicant applied for and received sanctuary status under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code §12686. She was issued sanctuary orders for the period 1 October 2012 through 28 February 2014. The applicant was honorably retired due to the expiration of her sanctuary orders/service.
4. Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) of the DD Form 214 issued to her on 28 February 2014 shows her net service this period equals 7 months and
28 days.
5. In the development of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau, Chief, Personnel Policy Division. It states that
* on 3 February 2012 she reverted to a traditional status with her release from the AGR
* the applicant remained eligible for promotion during the period 3 February through 30 September 2012
* the OKARNG retained promotion authority during this period
* the applicant applied for and was approved for sanctuary for the period 1 October 2012 through 28 February 2014
* she was not eligible for promotion during the sanctuary period
* on 29 June 2012, the OKARNG bypassed the applicant and, without regulatory authority, promoted another Soldier ranked lower on the promotion list
* the applicant's records should be corrected by promoting her to MSG/E-8 effective 29 June 2012 with retroactive entitlement to all pay and allowances associated with the promotion
* the OKARNG concurred with this recommendation
6. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant. The available record does not indicate the applicant submitted any additional statements or contentions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The available evidence shows the applicant was on the State promotion list and in a promotable status on 29 June 2012 when another Soldier that ranked below the applicant on the promotion list was promoted to MSG/E8. This action was improper and contrary to regulation and policy and denied the applicant her just promotion.
2. As a matter of equity and to correct the injustice, it would be appropriate to show the applicant was promoted to MSG/E8, effective 29 June 2012, with retroactive entitlement to all pay and allowances associated with the promotion to the date of her retirement.
3. There was an arithmetic error on the 28 February 2014 DD Form 214, at block 12c (Net Active Service This Period). The applicant's period of service is incorrectly entered as 7 months and 28 days not the correct figure of 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days. This administrative error does not require action by the Board. Therefore, administrative correction of the applicant's records will be accomplished by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Case Management Division (CMD) as outlined in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.
BOARD VOTE:
____X___ ____X___ ____X___ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the applicant was promoted to MSG/E-8, effective 29 June 2012, with retroactive entitlement to all pay and allowances associated with the promotion.
2. The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected. Therefore, the Board requests that the ARBA CMD administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show the applicant's last period of active duty service as 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days.
_______ _ 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) AR20140006360
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140006360
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017577
The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: April 2008 Senior Enlisted Promotion Board Recommended List; 88th RRC Promotion/Position Assignment Notification (electronic mail (e-mail)), dated 25 July 2008; Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA & MRA) dated 28 June 2006, Subject: Promotion Policies for Reserve Component (RC) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) in Excess of 12...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009772
Orders Number 097-40 (corrected copy), issued by the ORARNG on 6 April 2012, reassigned her to the transition center for a scheduled separation date of 30 November 2012, released her from active duty, and placed her on the Retired List in the retired grade of SGM on 1 December 2012. c. A DA Form 1059, dated 19 June 2012, which shows she completed the SGM Course at the SGM Academy on the same date. The available evidence shows the applicant was considered and selected for release from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020687
On 13 November 2013, new information was received from the Director, Human Resources, Indiana Army National Guard (INARNG), requesting amendment of the previous advisory opinion rendered by the Acting Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB), to authorize back pay based on the applicant being reinstated in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status by the AGR Tour Continuation Board and a corresponding supplemental action in regard to the decision of the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011646
He was also informed that since he was on the promotion list at the time he was referred to the PDES, he would be promoted to the recommended grade upon retirement. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was advanced on the retired list to the rank of SGM (E-9) or MSG (E-8) because after having back surgery and being referred for MEB/PEB processing he was selected for promotion to MSG (E-8) in both 2010 and 2011; however, his physical profile precluded him...
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 | CY2013 | 20130004914
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. 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. The evidence of record shows the applicant's 10 June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002153
Promotion will not be used solely as a reward for past performance " Warrant officers must go through the Federal recognition process, and the promotion effective date is when the scroll is signed. This memorandum states all initial appointments of warrant officers and appointments in a higher grade (promotion) by warrant or commission will be issued by the President effective 7 January 2011. c. Before NDAA 2011, all ARNG warrant officer promotions effective DOR were the date of the State...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001572
After a review of the eligibility criteria for promotion to SGM, it appears those who completed the SMC prior to RCP and eligibility criteria changes were not addressed in Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 13-037 (FY13 USAR AGR SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message) for the FY13 USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Board. d. In her view, the promotion board consideration file was not properly constituted based on the omission of appropriate eligibility criteria...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003904
In a memorandum, dated 11 September 2006, Subject: Promotion Policies for Reserve Component (RC) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) in Excess of 12 Months and Sanctuary Soldiers, USARC provided clarification to the 26 June 2006 memorandum. In a memorandum, dated 30 April 2007, Subject: Clarification and Change to Promotion Policies for Army Reserve Troop Program (TPU) Enlisted Soldiers on Active Duty for Operational support (ADOS) and Sanctuary Soldiers, USARC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016769
Army Regulation 635-40 sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. There is no evidence to show the applicant's medical records were recommended for review by a medical...