IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150012079 


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 reconsideration for her previous request for consideration for promotion to the rank of sergeant major (SGM), specifically for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12).

	a.  If her request is approved, she requests her records go before a promotion board.  

	b.  If she is selected for promotion to SGM, she requests her date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to a DOR appropriate for FY 2012, and all her pay and allowances be awarded retroactively. 

2.  The applicant states she is requesting reconsideration based upon new evidence she discovered in Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 
12-100 (Amendment to MILPER Message 12-059, FY12 Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message), issued 30 March 2012, which refutes the statements made in the advisory opinion obtained from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 26 March 2015, which stated, "[The applicant's] request for a STAB [Stand By Advisory Board] was disapproved due to not meeting the eligibility criteria in the appropriate MILPER message.  For FY2012 USAR AGR SGM Board, [the applicant] did not meet the Date of Birth (DOB) requirements in MILPER 12-059."



	a.  The new evidence is supported by the facts listed in MILPER Message 
12-100, which documents eligibility for "former graduates of the USASMC [United States Army Sergeants Major Course]."  Human Resources Command (HRC) officials stated she did not meet the eligibility criteria for promotion and further added to the advisory opinion that "There is no provision in either MILPER Message which separates USASMA [United States Army Sergeants Major Academy] Graduates from Non-Graduates in regards to eligibility criteria."  HRC officials never mentioned MILPER Message Number 12-100, the amendment to MILPER Message Number 12-059, which did separate the eligibility criteria for graduates and non-graduates for the FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection Board.

	b.  MILPER Message Number 12-100 annotates the following criteria for USASMC graduates:

* All AGR MSG/1SG who are former graduates of the USASMC with a DOR of 31 May 2010 or earlier
* Pay Entry Basic Date (PEBD) OF 31 May 2002 or earlier
* Basic Active Service Date (BASD) of 31 May 1984 or later
* DOB of 31 May 1954 or later

	c.  In comparison, and based upon the criteria listed in MILPER Message Number 12-100 for USASMC graduates, she meets all of the criteria for promotion consideration noted in MILPER Message Number 12-100 PER Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotion and Reductions), paragraph 4-2a(1) as it pertains to DOR and BASD.  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.

3.  The applicant provides the following new evidence:

* Self-authored statement, dated 27 July 2014
* Fax coversheet and comments, dated 27 July 2014


* MILPER Message Number 12-100 (Amendment to MILPER Message 
12-059, FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message), issued 30 March 2012
* Fax Journal, dated 5 March 1996

4.  The applicant provides the following previously considered evidence:

* Advisory Opinion, dated 26 March 2015
* an excerpt from Army Regulation 600-8-19, Chapter 4 
* MILPER Message Number 12-059 FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message), dated 2 March 2012

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20150001572, on 14 July 2015.

2.  The applicant provides a new argument and new evidence that was not previously considered.  The new evidence and argument warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant's record contains an Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) showing she held/holds military occupation specialty 42A (Human Resources Specialist) and which lists her:

* DOB as 8 September 1956
* PEBD as 1 October 1982
* BASD as 17 June 1986
* DOR to MSG as 1 June 2004

4.  The previous Record of Proceedings (ROP) shows the applicant stated/requested:

	a.  She was denied promotion consideration for SGM and a STAB for the FY12 selection board based on the BASD eligibility criteria for consideration for Sergeants Major Course (SMC) attendance and no BASD eligibility criteria for SMC graduates who would not require the nearly 2 years to acquire a promotion sequence number upon satisfactory progression/completion of the SMC.

	b.  She requested approval for extension of her Retention Control Point (RCP) from 30 June 2015 to 30 June 2018 and promotion consideration to SGM by virtue of STABs under the FY12 criteria.
	c.  She was omitted from the FY12 SGM promotion consideration lists 

	d.  When the FY12 USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Board results were released in July 2012, her name was omitted from the original consideration/selection list.  The omission identified her for a STAB.  She contacted HRC about the omission and was told the new list was pending.  She continued to prepare a STAB memorandum.  A corrected list was released to the field reflecting her name as if she had been considered for promotion.  Other adjustments were made, including the addition of a military occupational specialty 42A sequence number.  The statistical data did not match the original list; however, once the adjustment was made and the second list was released the statistical data did match.  

	e.  She was denied the opportunity to request consideration by a STAB due to the fact that her board file had been reviewed.  

5,  The previous ROP mentioned the following, with respect to the FY12 Board:

	a.  "In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Department of the Army Promotions Branch, HRC.  HRC recommends disapproval of the applicant's request.  The opinion noted, "The applicant's request for due process review and promotion consideration to the rank of SGM is unsubstantiated.  The applicant claims she was denied promotion consideration and STAB to SGM for the… FY12… USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Boards… The applicant also contends she was denied STAB consideration for the FY12… USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Boards.  Her request for a STAB was disapproved due to not meeting the eligibility criteria in the appropriate MILPER messages.  For the FY12 USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Board, she did not meet the [DOB] criteria listed in MILPER Message 12-059..."  

	b.  "A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and possible rebuttal.  On 7 April 2015, she responded [to the advisory opinion, she indicated her strong disagreement,] and stated… In FY12, there were two selection lists for FY12 USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Board results.  Her name was omitted from the FY12 list.  She immediately contacted HRC and was informed that MILPER Message 12-229 [Official Release of the FY12 AGR SGM Selection List, dated 24 July 2012] had been posted to the HRC website notifying the field that the FY12 USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Board list was being pulled from the HRC site due to errors and no requests for a STAB would be approved due to the notification.  A corrected FY12 USAR AGR SGM Selection and Training Board list was later released.  The second sequence number for the two Soldiers selected for promotion in MOS 42A was not annotated.  She hoped she was the only Soldier in MOS 42A who was omitted from the list and the missing sequence number was hers.  Unfortunately, the missing sequence number was annotated next to a Soldier with MOS 42A as a secondary MOS…"

	c.  "Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 4 (Centralized Promotions (Sergeant First Class, MSG, and SGM)), paragraph 4-2a(1), states Soldiers must meet announced DOR and BASD requirements and other eligibility criteria prescribed within the board announcement message."

	d.  "MILPER Message Number 12-059 (FY12 USAR AGR SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message) states the eligibility criteria for SMC consideration for the purpose of promotion to SGM included: all USAR AGR MSGs/first sergeants with a DOR of 31 May 2010 and earlier; PEBD of 31 May 2002 or earlier; BASD of 31 May 1986 or later; [and] DOB of 31 May 1956 or later.  This message [also] states the primary zone DOR is 8 June 2009 and earlier [and the] secondary zone DOR is 9 June 2009 through 31 May 2010."

6.  MILPER Message Number 12-229, dated 24 July 2012 states "the FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection Board Results, originally released to the field on 
19 July 2012, has been pulled from the HRC and S1 Net websites due to administrative adjustments.  The reconfigured list will be released to the HRC and S1 Net websites for Commanders, Soldiers, and human resource users to download no later than Thursday, 2 August 2012."

7.  She previously provided an email transmission from MSG FDL, dated             9 August 2012, wherein he stated, "There is a problem with the FY12 SGM Promotion and Selection List (42A).  The problem is that only two allocations were identified for 42A promotions and one allocation was given to [an MSG, holding the Primary Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)] 79V [Retention and Transition NCO]…for promotion in his secondary MOS of (42A).  This is implying that out of the 115 Soldiers that were qualified for promotion in the primary MOS of 42A, that the best qualified was a 79V primary MOS qualified as a 42A in his secondary MOS.  This practice or policy should not be considered in the promotion process, especially since the 42A MSG and SGM ranks are over-strength at 107% and 104% respectfully... The concern is not to allow misusage of our promotion allocation and select the best qualified in their primary MOS… the… stats for the Promotion Board [show] the 79V MOS did not have any allocations for promotion for this fiscal year… the 42A stats had two...  all interested and concerned MSGs [should] voice their option on the system's misusage of our allocation..."
8.  The FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection List "Corrected Copy" lists her name, but does not include a sequence number.  This indicates she was considered but not selected for promotion to SGM in FY12.  This list also shows:

	a.  There were 115 MSG in MOS 42A qualified and considered for promotion to SGM and only 2 selected.  

	b.  There were 138 MSG in MOS 79V qualified and considered for promotion to SGM and 0 selected.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 4 (Centralized Promotions (Sergeant First Class, MSG, and SGM)), paragraph 4-2a(1), states Soldiers must meet announced DOR and BASD requirements and other eligibility criteria prescribed within the board announcement message.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 4-13 (Rules for Processing a Standby Advisory Board (STAB)) states the Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1 or designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon determining that a material error existed in a Soldier’s OMPF when the file was reviewed by a selection board.  An administrative error is immaterial if the Soldier, in excising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error.  STABs are convened to consider records of those otherwise eligible Soldiers whose records were not reviewed by a centralized selection board.  Soldiers selected by a STAB will be added to the appropriate recommended list and promoted along with their contemporaries when their sequence number is reached.  

11.  MILPER Message Number 12-059 (FY12 Army Reserve (AGR) SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message), issued on 2 March 2012 contained instructions regarding selection to attend the USASMC for the purpose of promotion to SGM and stated an HQDA Selection Board would convene at the DA Secretariat (DAS), Fort Knox, KY on 30 May 2012.  This board was to consider eligible Soldiers and select the best qualified AGR 1SG/MSG to attend the USASMC for the purpose of promotion to SGM.  Soldiers who were graduates of the USASMC, if otherwise selected as best-qualified by this board, were to be grand-fathered and awarded promotion sequence numbers consistent with the guidance established in this message.  Additionally, this board was to consider Soldiers for possible Department of the Army denial of continued service.  The FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection List was to include (with a promotion sequence Number) all AGR Soldiers who were previous graduates of the USASMC selected for promotion to SGM by this board.  The eligibility criteria for USASMC consideration/for the purpose of promotion to SGM includes all AGR MSG/1SG with a/within the:

* DOR of 31 May 2010 and earlier
* PEBD 31 May 2002 or earlier
* BASD 31 May 1986 or later
* DOB 31 May 1956 or later
* Primary zone DOR of 8 June 2009 and earlier
* Secondary zone of 9 June 2009 thru 31 May 2010

12.  MILPER Message Number 12-100 (Amendment to MILPER Message Number 12-059, FY12 AGR SGM Training and Selection Board Announcement Message), issued 30 March 2012, stated close attention must be given to specific eligibility criteria and other requirements contained in this message.  Previously approved Army policies in support of the Army leader development strategy required Soldiers to complete a three (3) year service obligation upon promotion to the rank of SGM.  All Soldiers must have sufficient remaining service to complete this service obligation by their 32nd Year of active federal service (AFS).  As a result, only Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) with a maximum of 26 years AFS were otherwise eligible for selection consideration by this board to attend the USASMC.  Additionally, because the maximum age for continued AFS is limited to age 62; only NCOs age 56 or younger would be otherwise eligible for selection consideration by this board to attend the USASMC for the purpose of promotion to SGM.  The purpose of this policy was to ensure NCOs selected for promotion could complete their promotion service obligation prior to reaching the RCP (mandatory retirement) in their new grade.  The eligibility criteria for USASMC consideration/for the purpose of promotion to SGM included all AGR MSG/1SG with a/within the:

* DOR of 31 May 2010 and earlier
* PEBD 31 May 2002 or earlier
* BASD 31 May 1984 or later
* DOB 31 May 1954 or later
* Primary zone DOR is 8 June 2009 and earlier
* Secondary zone is 9 June 2009 thru 31 May 2010

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requested reconsideration of her previous request for consideration for promotion to the rank of SGM, specifically for FY12, based upon the argument that she met the DOB and BASD criteria listed in MILPER Message 12-100.

2.  The applicant has based her request for reconsideration on the advisory opinion obtained in conjunction with the previous ROP and the previous denial of her request for a STAB for FY12 based on her failure to meet the established DOB and BASD requirements.  

3.  The advisory opinion and the previous ROP failed to mention or note her consideration and non-selection by the FY12 board.  The reason for this omission is unclear, but appears to have been an unintentional oversight.  

4.  The applicant did meet the criteria for promotion consideration as stipulated in MILPER Message Number 12-100, and as such, the evidence indicates she was considered for promotion to SGM by the FY12 promotion board.  

5.  The applicant was properly considered but not selected for promotion during FY12.  The fact that the initial list was pulled and a corrected copy was issued does not indicate that the final list was in error, it indicates the first list was inaccurate.  Further, there is no evidence of record to indicate that the corrected copy contained any errors, that the FY12 board failed to consider the applicant's record, or that any injustice occurred.  

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 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)                                         AR20150012079



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150012079



8


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1