IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 July 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018572
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, in effect, correction of her military records to show she was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) in June 2012, with receipt of all back pay due as a result of this correction.
2. The applicant states she was fully qualified to be promoted in 2012 but her command chose not to do so. She filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint resulting in agreement that she should have been promoted.
3. The applicant provides copies of:
* memorandum from the California Army National Guard (CAARNG), dated 25 July 2014
* CAARNG Orders 287-1041, dated 16 October 2014
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. At the time of her application, the applicant was serving as an SFC in the CAARNG.
2. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB). It states:
a. The applicant's request should be approved by showing she was promoted to SFC with an effective date and date of rank of 1 June 2012, with payment of all back pay and allowances.
b. The applicant was a new Army guard/Reserve (AGR) hire effective 1 April 2009 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 00F4O. She subsequently completed the Army Basic Instructor Course in 2009 and was awarded MOS 92A38. In October 2011, she was converted from 00F4O to 00F48.
c. The applicant submitted a promotion packet for the 2012 Enlisted Promotion System (EPS) Cycle. She came out number 7 on the 92A4O EPS List. The company's Command Team submitted a request to assign the applicant into the E-7 position for which she was hired and was occupying at the time. However, the request was denied due to her not being number 1 on the 92A4O EPS List.
d. On 22 May 2014, the applicant received a favorable response from the CAARNG IG concerning her selection for promotion to SFC within the 2012 EPS Cycle.
e. On 16 October 2014, CAARNG Orders 287-1041 announced the applicant's promotion to SFC.
f. On 21 November 2014, CAARNG Orders 325-1004 placed the applicant in the AGR as an SFC Title 32, Recruiter.
g. On 8 February 2015, the California Board for Correction of Military Records determined that the applicant's date of rank for E-7 should not be changed from 3 September 2014 to 1 June 2012.
h. On 9 February 2015, a CAARNG memorandum, subject: Erroneous Promotion to the Rank of SFC was issued and cited several regulations. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, paragraph 4-10e reads "AGR Soldiers selected through a hiring board must submit their promotion packet to compete for promotion during the next promotion board, if eligible. Soldiers must be selected in sequence as they appear on the promotion list.
i. On 12 February 2015, CAARNG Orders 43-1206, reduced the applicant to staff sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, effective 15 February 2015.
j. On 19 February 2015, CAARNG Order 50-1049, revoked CAARNG Orders 287-1041.
k. Personnel Policy Memorandum (PPOM) number 06-61, dated 12 October 2006, reads that those AGR Soldiers who are hired through an interview board process after the EPS List was exhausted of AGR personnel in the MOS of the vacant position may be promoted out of sequence upon the State conducting
either a standby board or within the next promotion cycle adding them to the career progression MOS list.
i. The NGB Enlisted Policy Branch concurred with the advisory opinion recommendation.
m. The CAARNG non-concurred with the advisory opinion recommendation.
3. On 17 June 2015, the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for her information and opportunity to respond. On 23 June 2015, she concurred with the advisory opinion.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that her military records should be corrected to show she was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) in June 2012, with receipt of all back pay due as a result of this correction.
2. The available information in the advisory opinion strongly indicates that the applicant was fully qualified for promotion. She submitted a promotion packet and was selected for promotion and came out number 7 on the EPS List. Furthermore, it appears that she was an interview hire resulting in the company's Command Team submitting a request to assign her into the E-7 position for which she was hired and was occupying at the time. Therefore, based on the PPOM number 06-61, she could be promoted out of sequence.
3. In view of the above, the applicant's request should be granted.
BOARD VOTE:
___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that the State Army National Guard records and all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:
a. showing she was promoted to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 June 2012; and
b. paying her all back pay and allowances due as a result of this correction.
__________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) AR20140018572
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018572
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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 | CY2012 | 20120009448
The applicant states: a. He was number 1 on the promotion list but on 16 October 2010 the AGR manager selected the number 2 Soldier on the promotion list to fill a MSG vacancy as he (the applicant) did not have 14 years of AFS. The evidence of record shows that although the applicant was number 1 on the MSG promotion list on 16 October 2010 and met the regulatory requirements in AR 600-8-19 for promotion the COARNG selected the Soldier who was number 2 on the promotion list for promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000031
This DA Form 1506 does not show she entered active duty on 8 July 2012. c. The DA Form 1506 she digitally signed on 26 September 2014, which was also authenticated by an HR Technician on 26 September 2014 documents her various periods of service and differentiates each period as Army service in either the ARNG, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) or Regular components. Her OMPF contains 2 DA Forms 1506 that were completed in 2013 and 2014. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
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 | CY2013 | 20130006985
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 6 March 2012, he rebutted the recommendation for separation by stating he had met all the requirements of the last chance agreement and individually addressed the developmental counseling statements given to him by SFC HN. A memorandum addressed to the Minnesota National Guard IG, dated 7 March 2013, shows he requested reinstatement in the AGR program.
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 | CY2014 | 20140017103
She formally requested an ETP from the State Incentive Manager on 1 October 2012, wherein she requested relief from, and termination of, the levied recoupment action in the amount of $20,428.45 that resulted from the termination of her incentive entitlements. (8) Furthermore, had she executed a written agreement the bonus would have been terminated in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures), paragraph E3.l.8.2,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013642
The 814th AG Company Unit Manning Report prepared on 5 November 2008 shows she was assigned to the position of Chief Human Resources Sergeant (position number 0020) in the rank of 1SG in MOS 42A5O on 22 August 2007. b. SFC S____ of the USAR 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (ESC) emailed several individuals, including the applicant indicating the applicant had been recommended [i.e., selected] for promotion to SGM against a position at her unit, the 814th AG Company. c. 1SG B____ [the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012570
The applicant concludes, in effect, that any EPS provisions were irrelevant, that the selection board was properly constituted and that she was selected for permanent promotion to pay grade E-8. Since her return for deployment, other unit vacancies have been filled by Soldiers who were selected for E8 positions after she was. There is no available evidence to show that the applicant was selected for promotion to pay grade E8.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013213
The applicant requests, in effect, adjustment of her date of rank (DOR) to captain (CPT) to an earlier DOR the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) considers to be reasonable and fair. The Reserve Officer Promotion Act states, "The effective date of promotion and date of rank of an officer who is promoted under the position vacancy system is the date the Chief, NGB, extends Federal recognition. The applicant contends her DOR for promotion to CPT in the CAARNG should be...