Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021463
Original file (20140021463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:    28 July 2015

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021463


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 his record to show he was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 and that his military occupational specialty (MOS) be changed from 95B1O (Military Police-Basic) to 95B2O (Military Police-Supervisor).

2.  The applicant states he was promoted from specialist (SPC)/E-4 to SGT/E-5 on 1 September 2001 under the condition that he attend the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) before 31 August 2002.  His expiration of term of service (ETS) date was supposed to be 11 May 2002 which would have allowed him to ETS as a SGT/E-5.  However, he was held an extra 12 months because of a stop loss.  His command held him from PLDC because he did not re-enlist.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), and his Enlisted Record Brief.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  On 12 August 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  After initial training, he was awarded MOS 95B10.  

3.  Section I of his DA Form 2-1 shows he was advanced to E-4 on 
12 November 1999, to E-5 on 1 September 2001, and reduced to corporal (CPL)/E-4 on 1 November 2002.

4.  A review of his records failed to reveal any information to show that the applicant was ever promoted to SGT/E-5, that he attended or was scheduled to attend PLDC, or that he qualified for MOS 95B2O.

5.  On 11 August 2003, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in pay grade E-4 due to his completion of required service.  He had served 6 years of total active service.

6.  Army Regulation 611-1 (Military Occupational Classification Structure Development and Implementation) prescribes the policies and procedures governing the duties for MOS 95B at each level of skill:

* 95B1O (pay grades E-4 and below) - Performs as a team member in support of battlefield operations, installation law and order operations and security of Army resources and installations; and
* 95B2O (pay grade E-5) - Leads military police teams in support of battlefield operations and leads and supervises small sections in support of security and installation law and order operations

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel.  The regulation in effect on May 2003 provided, in pertinent part, conditional promotions for Soldiers who have met a cutoff score and are otherwise qualified, but have not completed PLDC.  These Soldiers may be promoted (when approved by the promotion authority) when they are reflected on the order of merit list (OML) for PLDC attendance, when they are operationally deployed (less training centers), or when a temporary profile prohibits PLDC attendance.  When the promotion authority approves a conditional promotion, he must state that the Soldier is otherwise fully eligible and will attend PLDC within 12 months of promotion or prior to the individual’s expiration of term of service (ETS), whichever occurs first. Promotion to the rank of SGT incurred a 6-month service remaining obligation at that time.  Promotions are only authorized during the month for which the cutoff score is met.  However, when Soldiers have not met the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) requirement, exceptions are allowed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was promoted to SGT/E-5 but was prevented from attending the required PLDC in order to accept promotion has been noted and found to lack merit.  While the applicant may have been in a promotable status on 1 September 2002, the PLDC was required in order to be promoted or, in the case of a conditional promotion, to retain the grade.  

2.  While the facts and circumstances surrounding his promotion and reduction are not present in the available records, it does show that he was advanced to 
E-4 on 12 November 1999 and to E-5 on 1 September 2001, but reduced to corporal (CPL)/E-4 on 1 November 2002.  The regulation in effect at the time allowed his promotion authority to approve a conditional promotion to the rank of SGT/E-5 provided the promotion authority essentially guaranteed that the applicant would complete PLDC within 12 months or his ETS, whichever came earlier.  It appears he did not meet the condition to retain his promotion and was reduced as a result.

3.  There is nothing in the applicant's record to show that he was promoted to SGT/E-5 after his reduction in 2002; therefore, he was not eligible for MOS 95B2O.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the relief he has requested.  

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)                                         AR20140021463



4



ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002192

    Original file (20080002192.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, effective 1 May 2003. The regulation in effect on May 2003 provided, in pertinent part, conditional promotions for Soldiers who have met a cutoff score and are otherwise qualified, but have not completed PLDC, are authorized to be promoted (when approved by the promotion authority) when they are reflected on the OML for PLDC attendance, when they are operationally...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009448C070208

    Original file (20040009448C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 22 June 2004, the HRC approved a request for exception to policy to reinstate the applicant's name to the promotion selection by-name-list and to subsequently promote him to SGT, with a retroactive DOR and effective date of 1 January 2004, granted he was otherwise eligible. Soldiers were allowed to compete for promotion to SGT, but could not be promoted to SGT until completion of PLDC. Had he not been erroneously removed, he would have been promoted to SGT in MOS 96B prior to being...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018500

    Original file (20100018500.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provides that the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who have completed a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 21 September 1970 through 1 April 1972; b. adding to item 24 of his DD Form 214 the: *...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000209

    Original file (20150000209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2001 | 2001066094C070421

    Original file (2001066094C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Sergeant (SGT), E-5 with an effective date of 1 December 2000. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show he completed PLDC, a requirement for promotion to SGT, prior to the date he met the cutoff score...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009303

    Original file (20090009303.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states that his orders and awards show that he was ordered to active duty and served as a military policeman; however, his DD Form 214 reflects his primary specialty as a 92G (Food Service Specialist). While the record is clear that the applicant was school trained, deployed, and served as an MP in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, there is insufficient evidence in the available...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010378

    Original file (20110010378.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show in: a. item 11 (Primary Specialty) that he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95C (corrections specialist) for 2 years and 3 months; b. item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he was awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal and the Southwest Asia Service Medal; and c. item 14 (Military Education) that he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610726C070209

    Original file (9610726C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Paragraph 3-18j states, in effect, that the promotion packet of a soldier on the recommended list will be kept in the soldier’s records and a copy in the promotions section until the soldier is promoted. The applicant met the cutoff score for promotion to pay grade E-5 on 1 July 1996. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to pay grade E-5 effective and with a date of rank of 1...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012279

    Original file (20130012279.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 2002082313C070215

    Original file (2002082313C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The evidence of record...