BOARD DATE: 17 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002301 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _____x___ ____x____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 17 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002301 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. BOARD DATE: 17 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002301 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 promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG), effective August 2012. 2. The applicant states his promotion packet was not acted upon in a timely manner. This caused a waiver to be required for his age so that he could attend the Command SGM (CSM) (sic, The U.S. Army Sergeants Major) Academy (USASMA). A waiver was not needed to be promoted to SGM when a Soldier is not laterally transferred to CSM. a. A selection board was convened in August 2012 to select a replacement for the retiring CSM of the 1140th Engineer Battalion. He was honored to be one of the noncommissioned officers to appear before the board, and the board recommended him for selection. He filled out the request forms and signed the necessary documents in good faith; based on his assumption both the selection and promotion would take place. b. He held the battalion CSM position from August to November 2012, trusting all required processes were on track. On 5 November 2012, while on orders for a training exercise, he was informed he would require an age waiver so he could attend USASMA, after which he could be promoted to CSM. However, there were unnecessary delays in processing the paperwork, and the result was that he was denied promotion, and told he would have to return to his previous position as a first sergeant (1SG). c. He has included documentation, such as a newspaper article and email traffic from individuals who knew of his selection, for the Board's review. He feels he deserved promotion to SGM. 3. The applicant provides: * Statements of Agreement and Certification, dated 25 September 2012 * Missouri National Guard (MOAR) Form 4103-R (EPS (Enlisted Promotion System) Request for Fill), dated 14October 2012 * MOARNG news release, dated 15 October 2012 * Missouri civilian news article, dated 16 October 2012 * memorandum, dated 12 September 2015 * memorandum, dated 15 September 2015 * memorandum, dated 22 September 2015 * memorandum for record (MFR), dated 23 September 2015 * email correspondence, dated between November 2012 and July 2015 * extract from NG Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), chapter 7 (ARNG CSM Program) 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. The applicant enlisted in the MOARNG on 4 March 1974. He held military occupational specialty 63B (Light-Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic). He served continuously through extensions and reenlistments, and rose to the rank of 1SG, effective 9 March 2008. 3. His official military personnel file is void of any reference to being selected by a CSM board or filling a battalion CSM position between August and November 2012. 4. MOARNG Orders 189-036, dated 8 July 2015, honorably discharged him from the MOARNG and transferred him to The Retired Reserve, effective 30 October 2015. 5. Orders Number C01-169035, dated 12 January 2016, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, retired the applicant and placed him on the retired list effective 19 October 2015. His retired grade was listed as 1SG. 6. The applicant provides: a. Memorandum, dated 12 September 2015, prepared by CSM SAS, Brigade CSM, states: * in August 2012, the 1140th Engineer Battalion held a selection board to replace the retiring CSM * the applicant was selected over eight other candidates; board documentation was sent to State headquarters * the decision was made at State headquarters that a promotion packet would not be forwarded to NGB due to the applicant's age * having sat on the board, it is the writer's opinion the applicant was indeed the best candidate b. Memorandum, dated 15 September 2015, written by CSM (Retired) MNJ, which states: * the writer retired in 2010 when he was the State's CSM; he has known the applicant since 1978 * the applicant had served as a 1SG for several years when he was considered for the CSM position * the writer heard the applicant had been selected by the 1140th Engineer Battalion's board and thought the applicant was a very logical choice * he later learned the selection was rescinded because the applicant did not meet the age requirements and waivers were not authorized * the writer felt it was unfortunate the applicant was not appointed as a CSM because he was fully qualified and promotable to the rank of SGM; he would have made an outstanding CSM c. Two memoranda, dated 22 and 23 September 2015, respectively prepared by Captain KJS, Battalion S-1, and Lieutenant Colonel CSG, Battalion S-3 and Battalion Administrative Officer. The memoranda describe the applicant's selection for the 1140th Engineer Battalion CSM position, there was a Change of Responsibility Ceremony in October 2012 between the outgoing CSM and the applicant, and that the applicant performed the duties and responsibilities of the battalion CSM. Around November 2012, the applicant learned the State CSM had not recommended an age waiver. This forced the battalion commander to make another selection, and the applicant returned to his duties as a unit 1SG. 7. On 13 January 2017, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) provided an advisory opinion. a. NGB recommended disapproval. (1) The applicant stated he was selected in August 2012 to fill a CSM position, and provides supporting documentation. (2) NGB Memorandum, dated 16 October 2012, subject: Fall 2012 ARNG CSM Selection Board Results, noted a selection board convened on 11 September 2012. The Director, ARNG approved the board's recommendations on 15 October 2012. There is no evidence the applicant’s record appeared before this selection board. b. It appears the applicant was selected for the unit position, but was never nominated, appointed, or promoted by orders. (1) He was eligible for promotion when the NGB CSM board convened. The (State) Adjutant General (TAG) has the authority to explain, in a required memorandum, the circumstances, special qualities, qualifications, as well as other relevant information related to the Soldier to show he is best qualified. (2) A waiver or exception to policy for age was not authorized. The MOARNG did not submit the required memorandum and noted they did not support a waiver for the applicant at the time. c. NGR 600-200 states CSM positions will be filled only by current CSMs, former CSMs eligible for reappointment, and (Headquarters) ARNG CSM board selectees. Nominated master sergeants, 1SGs, and SGMs may perform the duties of a CSM on an acting or detailed basis, but will not be reassigned to the position until selected by the (Headquarters) ARNG CSM board. d. Although the applicant briefly filled the unit CSM position, he did not complete USASMA and became ineligible for promotion consideration based on his age shortly after the Fall ARNG CSM list was approved. The applicant served honorably, but, unfortunately, was not officially nominated for promotion to SGM, based on the discretionary authority of the MOARNG. e. The advisory opinion was coordinated with the ARNG Enlisted Policy Branch, and the MOARNG concurred with NGB's recommendation. 8. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 26 January 2017, but did not submit a response. REFERENCES: NGR 600-200, chapter 7 outlines policies and procedures for ARNG CSM program. It states Soldiers identified for assignment to actual or projected vacant CSM positions will be nominated to the next Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) NGB CSM board. a. The State TAG is required to complete the nomination memorandum, assemble the nomination packet, and submit an electronic packet prior to the suspense date. Comments by the State TAG are mandatory, and CSMs will verify the nominee was selected by the (State) CSM board as best qualified. b. The HQDA ARNG CSM selection board conducts a comprehensive review of each nominee's packet and selects the best qualified. Soldiers selected for promotion to SGM with concurrent appointment to CSM will remain eligible for assignment, promotion, and appointment from the list until assigned and appointed, removed from the list for cause, or until separated. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence indicates the applicant was recommended by a battalion selection board to be its CSM and, after this selection, he participated in a Change of Responsibility ceremony and assumed CSM duties. The evidence also shows he was not nominated by the MOARNG TAG and, ultimately, was not selected by the HQDA NGB CSM board. 2. The NGB recommended disapproval in its advisory opinion because, although the applicant briefly filled a CSM position, he did not complete USASMA and became ineligible for consideration to SGM based on his age. NGB affirmed the applicant served honorably, but was not officially nominated for promotion to SGM, based on the discretionary authority of the MOARNG. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002301 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002301 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2