IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006027 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of her previous request for promotion to the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7, effective date 1 December 2015 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Email communication * Memorandum for Record FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20200000116 on 27 April 2020. 2. The applicant states in pertinent part that she was precluded from being considered for promotion to SFC in 2015 due to her age. She notes that she was fully qualified for promotion based on the provided board instructions. She contests that she was first advised that she was not considered due to her age, but this was later changed to being because she was not educationally qualified (military education). She provides that both reasons were incorrect. In response, she was informed that there were several disqualifying factors for everyone not considered by the board. She later appealed this action through the Command Inspector General’s (IG) office of the 88th Regional Support Command (RSC). Upon review, the IG office determined that she was unjustly and incorrectly denied consideration by the 2015 SFC Promotion Selection Board (PSB). She was advised to submit a packet requesting reconsideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB), which she did. She was then falsely advised by the 88th RSC and the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) that a STAB was conducted in May 2016. She argues that this information was validated when she requested copies of the board’s After Action Review (AAR). In response she was advised that no such documents exist because a board was not conducted. Finally, she provides that in the Board’s previous decision, the members incorrectly determined that she was already promoted to SFC. This too is incorrect 3. A review of the applicant’s available service records reflects the following: a. On 13 November 2006, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) at the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E -4 to serve as a 42A (Human Resources Specialist). b. On 30 August 2011, Headquarters, 9th Mission Support Command (MSC) issued Orders Number 11-242-00002 announcing the applicant’s promotion to the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6, effective 1 August 2011. c. On 9 June 2012, the applicant completed Phase II of the Advanced Leadership Course (ALC). d. On 13 February 2020, HRC issued Orders Number C02-0901027 retiring the applicant from military service and placing her on the Retired List in the rank of SSG, effective 3 January 2020. 4. The applicant provides: a. Email reflective of correspondence between the applicant, the 9th MSC Assistant IG concerning her request for a STAB. On 24 May 2016, the applicant was advised that her records would be considered by the STAB with the results projected to be released on 1 July 2016. On 21 June 2016, the applicant was advised that she was considered but not recommended for promotion due to the 9th MSC being overstrength in SFC 42As. In February 2022, the applicant was advised by a U.S. Army Reserve Command official that a promotion board for SFCs was not conducted in May 2016. b. Memorandum for Record reflective of the applicant's chronological account of her efforts to address her SFC promotion consideration and reconsideration by a STAB. This document is provided in its entirety for the Board’s review within the supporting documents. 5. On 27 April 2020, in Docket Number AR20200000116 the Board considered the applicant's requested relief. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The evidence of record reflects that she was fully eligible for consideration by the August 2015 SFC Promotion Board, but unfortunately was not considered. She requested a STAB for which HRC confirmed that she was considered, but not recommended. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found relief is not warranted. 2. The Board found the evidence clearly shows the applicant was considered for promotion to SFC. She was advised that two other Soldiers scored higher than her, which was why she was not recommended for one of the limited number of promotions available due to the then-current overall strength of SFCs in the USAR. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined there was no error or injustice in the decision that she would not be recommended for promotion to SFC. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20200000116 on 27 April 2020. 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. REFERENCE: Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), in effect at the time, prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support promotions and reductions. It provides the objectives of the Army’s Enlisted Promotions System, which including filling authorized enlisted spaces with the best qualified Soldiers. a. Paragraph 1-28 (Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Requirements for Promotion and Conditional Promotion) states the following: (1) Subparagraph a(3) all sergeants (all components) must be graduates of the Warrior Leader Course (WLC) and Structured Self-Development (SSD) level 2 before attaining eligibility for recommendation to staff sergeant (SSG). (2) Subparagraph a(4) all SSGs (all components) must completed Structured SSD level 3 before attaining eligibility for promotion consideration to sergeant first class (SFC). (3) Subparagraph a(5) states all SFCs (all components) must complete SSD level 4 before attaining eligibility for promotion consideration to master sergeant. b. Paragraph 5-7 (Eligibility Criteria for Selection Board Consideration) states the following: (1) Subparagraph j (Time in Grade Requirement), which is nonwaivable, for selection to SFC, the Soldier must have 36 months as a SSG (2) Subparagraph k (Time in Service Requirement), for selection to SFC, a Soldier must have 6 years time in service. (3) Subparagraph m (Age) that Soldiers who reach age 55 without NCOES completion for the next higher rank for age 57 with NCOES completed for the next higher rank prior to convening date of board are ineligible for consideration. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006027 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1