RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060007135 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Acting Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that he be given a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for promotion to pay grade E-8. 2. The applicant states that although the Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri, agreed that it was not his fault that his last Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) was not included in the file considered by the E-8 promotion board, it denied his request for a STAB. The applicant adds that he does not feel that his career should be adversely affected because of someone else’s mistake. 3. The applicant provides his NCOER for the period covering January to December 2005; e-mail correspondence between the applicant and HRC, St. Louis; a DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 23 April 2004 in which the applicant’s commander requests a STAB; and a memorandum dated 1 May 2006 from the HRC, St. Louis, denying the applicant’s commander’s request for a STAB. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 February 2002, the applicant was given his NCOER for the period covering January to December 2005. The evaluation was for his performance of duties in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program while assigned to a USAR unit as the assistant operations sergeant, pay grade E-7. The NCOER was extremely laudatory and the applicant was given the best ratings possible by both his rater and senior rater. 2. In the e-mail correspondence the applicant informed HRC St. Louis that his NCOER was sent to the promotion board on 13 February 2006 and the NCOER was sent to the records custodian for inclusion in his official military personnel file (OMPF) in the beginning of February. 3. On 14 February 2006, the assistant promotion board recorder responded to the applicant. The assistant recorder stated that his NCOER had not been received by the promotion board and the document cut-off for the promotion board was 8 February 2006. Therefore, the NCOER would not be included in the applicant’s promotion packet. 4. On 23 April 2004 in which the applicant’s commander requested a STAB to reconsider the applicant for promotion to pay grade E-8. In a memorandum dated 1 May 2006 from the HRC, St. Louis, that request was denied. It was explained that the NCOER was received by the Evaluation Support Branch for review and authentication on 13 February 2006, 6 days after the convening date of the promotion board. 5. The applicant’s records show that he has consistently received outstanding NCOERs throughout her career. 6. In the processing of this application an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC, St. Louis. The HRC stated that the applicant’s request for a STAB was denied because his NCOER was received after the convening date of the promotion board. The HRC adds that the governing regulation provides for promotion reconsideration when an NCOER is received in sufficient time to be included in the promotion packet but for some reason is omitted. The HRC opines that while it could be argued that the applicant was not directly responsible for the late submission of his NCOER, perhaps had he taken a more “hands on” approach to insure it was submitted to the correct office, the NCOER would have been included in his promotion packet. 7. The applicant was provide a copy of the advisory opinion and was given the opportunity to respond. He did not respond. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s NCOER was received after the promotion board convened. Therefore, it was properly not considered by the promotion board. 2. The applicant’s rating period ended in sufficient time for the NCOER to arrive at the promotion board prior to its cut off date if everything had gone perfectly. However, the failure of the NCOER to arrive in time for it to be included in the promotion packet is not surprising. The end of the rating period was 31 December 2005 and the cut off date for documents to arrive at the promotion board was 8 February 2006, which was a little over a month. During that time the applicant had to be rated by his rater, his senior rater had to rate him, and the NCOER had to be reviewed by the appropriate official. Only then could it be sent for inclusion in the promotion packet. 3. The applicant has not shown that there was information contained on the missing NCOER which would have resulted in his selection for promotion. While the NCOER is quite laudatory, so is his other NCOERs. This NCOER did not reflect the applicant being awarded a medal for valor or a combat tour completion. 4. Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request to have him reconsidered for promotion to pay grade E-8 by a STAB. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____jlp__ ____wdp_ ___ims___ 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. __________William D. Powers_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060007135 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 2007/03/13 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.