IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 August 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009453
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 his records to show he was recommended by his commander for promotion on the Enlisted Promotion Report (AAA-294) and was promoted to pay grade E-6 effective 1 July 2014.
2. The applicant states, in effect, his commander did not understand at the time that he was indicating by his "NO" response on the AAA-294 that the applicant was in a non-promotable status and thought instead that he was indicating no promotion board was needed. Had the commander properly indicated a "YES" response, he would have been promoted to pay grade E-6 as he was eligible and met the requirements for the promotion. He appealed the mistake to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and his request was denied because administrative failures or administrative mistakes are not a basis to make adjustments to the Command Integration List (CLI), which has nothing to do with what occurred in his case because he had the points and the commander simply checked the wrong box.
3. The applicant provides the list of supporting documents noted on page 5 of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was serving in the rank of sergeant in military occupational specialty 35F2O on 16 June 2014 when the Enlisted Promotion Report
(AAA-294) for 1 July 2014 was prepared for his unit. His commander indicated the entry "NO" under the "Promotion Action" column. The commander made no annotations under remarks to support the entry.
2. The applicant provided a memorandum from the company commander who signed the AAA-294 which indicates the applicant was erroneously denied CLI due to a misinterpretation by her and the first sergeant who were both new to their positions. She requested correction of his records and his promotion effective 1 July 2014.
3. The applicant also provided a list from the brigade deputy commander who also supports the commander's position and confirms that a mistake was made by the chain of command.
4. On 13 April 2015, HRC disapproved the applicant's request because the "NO" entry by his commander prevented him from integration on the CLI and because Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), paragraph
3-34, provides that failure by the Soldier, unit, battalion, or human resources personnel to update a Soldier's record (that is, Army Physical Fitness Test, weapons qualification, military or civilian education, award), integrate a Soldier onto the promotion list timely, or failure to remove a flag, is not grounds for reconsideration under the administrative records correction process.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his records should be corrected to show the entry "YES" under the "Promotion Action" column on the AAA-294 for 1 July 2014 has been noted and appears to have merit.
2. The applicant provided sufficient evidence to show an erroneous entry was made by the commander at the time due to her misinterpretation of the report and that it was her intent to integrate the applicant on the CLI and promote him if eligible.
3. It has never been Army policy to penalize Soldiers or deny them benefits that they otherwise would be qualified to receive because of error by their leaders, especially when the errors were through no fault of the Soldier or were errors that the Soldier had no control over. Additionally, it does not appear that the administrative corrections cited applied to the applicant's circumstances.
4. Accordingly, as a matter of equity, his records should be corrected to show the "YES" response under the "Promotion Action" column on the 1 July 2014 AAA-294 and promote him to pay grade E-6 (provided he was otherwise eligible at that time) with entitlement to all back pay and allowances that flow from that action.
BOARD VOTE:
___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 "YES" response under the "Promotion Action" column of the 1 July 2014 AAA-294 and by promoting him to pay grade E-6 (provided he was otherwise eligible at that time) effective 1 July 2014 or when he was eligible with entitlement to all back pay and allowances that flow from that action.
____________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) AR20150009453
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009453
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005434
The applicant requests correction of his records to show his "automatic promotion" to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6. Each month, Active Army Soldiers in all military occupational specialties who meet the following criteria will be automatically integrated into the SGT and SSG promotion standing lists provided they are otherwise eligible for promotion consideration, despite lacking the actual promotion board appearance. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016491
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he retired as a sergeant (SGT) in pay grade E-5. His record does not contain any documentation showing he was recommended for or promoted to SGT during his active duty service nor is there any record of NJP. In addition, he received a second flag effective 16 September 2013 for an adverse action which also made him ineligible for promotion consideration to SGT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002340
The applicant states that he was eligible for automatic promotion in September 2008; however, because he was in the Army overweight program from January 2008 to August 2008, his promotion was flagged. Paragraph 3-17 of Army Regulation 600-8-19 states, in pertinent part, that each month, Active Army Soldiers in all MOSs who have 46 months TIS (to become eligible for promotion at 48 months), 10 months TIG (to become eligible for promotion at 12 months), are otherwise not ineligible in...
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 | CY2014 | AR20140021727
The applicant states, in effect, that the subject debt resulted from payment of save pay when he converted from his commissioned officer grade to warrant officer grade that was granted in a "2005 Congressional Finding." In a letter dated 18 November 2005, as provided by the applicant, the Director, Military and Civilian Pay Services, DFAS, informed the applicant's Congressional Representative that they had reviewed the applicant's military pay entitlements and determined the following: a....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009714
Because the applicant's conviction was approved on 25 August 2009, a request for an ETP would only be supportable if applicable in September 2010 or later. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing an ETP was approved authorizing integration of the applicant into the promotion list in September 2010; b. reviewing his record to determine if he was eligible for promotion to SSG after integration into the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019159
BOARD DATE: 12 December 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019159 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. It should also be noted that the new system puts emphasis on the fact the Soldier has the responsibility to ensure that his or her records properly reflect their service; however, it appears there is no leeway or allowances made when the Soldier does what they are supposed to do, as did the applicant, and the support systems or chain of command which the applicant had to rely on do not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003382
c. When Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 08-033, subject: (Updated) AAA-294 Enlisted Promotion Report Automatic List Integration Section for Staff Sergeant) was issued on 1 February 2008, he was never informed of its provisions and he was not aware of any action by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to put him on the standing list for promotion to SSG/E-6. The company commander, first sergeant, and the battalion command sergeant major formed negative opinions of him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016992
The applicant states at the time of his application he was in the medical evaluation board (MEB) process. The applicant provides: * U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), Fort Sam Houston, TX Memorandum for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 17 April 2013 * Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum for U.S. Army, Promotion Work Centers, dated 18 April 2013, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 May 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024351
Headquarters, USARC Orders 09-072-00007, dated 13 March 2009, promoted her to sergeant major in MOS 42A with an effective date of 15 January 2009. In her request she stated a MSG at USARC stated she wasn't the only SGM whose promotion orders were revoked. USARC stated the applicant's promotion board was from 16 - 20 January 2007.