IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011626 APPLICANT REQUESTS: adjustment of his promotion to sergeant first class (SFC) in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 10 July 2023 to 15 July 2020 with back pay and allowances. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: • DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) • DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) • Recruiter Badge order FACTS: 1. The applicant states the process for 79T, Recruiting and Retention NCO, was not followed in accordance with the National Guard Regulation and guidelines. His DA Form 4187 request for personal actions for reclassification should have been processed and was not. He exceeded all the administrative requirements for conversion to 79T, Recruiting and Retention NCO. He completed a DA Form 4187 for conversion to 79T in 2020 and it was set aside by both the command sergeant major and the sergeant major over recruiting at that time and never pushed forward to National Guard Bureau (NGB) for consideration, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. This prevented him an equal opportunity with his peers and others who were behind him. His recruiting abilities are second to none and the records will verify that as fact. He had a reserved seat for 11B Senior Leader Course for May 2020 that was canceled due to COVID- 19 protocol. Had he been converted to military occupational specialty (MOS) 79T with his original DA Form 4187, he would have been eligible to promote in July 2020. 2. Review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARARNG) on 15 June 2012. He completed training for award of primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) 88M, Motor Transport Operator. b. On 13 June 2014, the applicant completed the 11B MOS course, which then became his PMOS, with MOS 88M as his secondary MOS (SMOS). c. On 15 May 2015, he graduated from the ARNG Non-Career Recruiter course. He was then transferred to the Recruiting and Retention Battalion (RRB). d. He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 15 September 2015 in PMOS 11B. He extended his enlistment twice, on 21 October 2015 and on 3 May 2019. e. On 5 August 2023, ARARNG published Orders 0005602265 promoting him to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 effective 10 July 2023. He continues to serve in the ARNG. 3. On 10 August 2023, the NGB provided an advisory opinion in the processing of his case. An NGB official reiterated the applicant’s request for a date of rank (DOR) adjustment to 15 July 2020 including all pay allowances due to the untimely process of his request for a career progression (CP) MOS change to 79T, Recruiting and Retention NCO. The NGB recommends disapproval. An NGB official states: a. Soldier reports that he submitted a DA Form 4187, Personal Action Request, for a CPMOS to 79T back in 2020. However, he claims that his request was not appropriately handled, therefore resulting in his boarding as 11B, Infantryman instead, for the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) Promotion Board. Soldier alleges that he was treated unfairly as it affected his ability to compete fairly and equitably with his peers. The applicant further states that he had a reserved seat for 11B Senior Leader Course (SLC) that was canceled due to COVID-19. Ultimately, he affirms that, had his CPMOS change request been completed timely, he would have been eligible for promotion in July 2020. b. On 15 June 2012, the applicant enlisted in the ARARNG as an 88M, Motor Transport Operator. On 13 June 2014, he completed the 11B1O MOS course, which then became his primary MOS (PMOS). Effective 15 May 2015, he graduated from the ARNG Non-Career Recruiter course. He was then transferred to the Recruiting and Retention Battalion (RRB). Subsequently, on 2 November 2015, he began his initial Active Guard Reserve (AGR) as a SQI (Skill Qualification Identifier) 4, Recruiting and Retention NCO. On 23 June 2017, he was promoted to SSG with 11B as his PMOS. Due to not meeting time in grade (TIG) requirements in accordance with in accordance with AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), the applicant was non-selected for the FY20 SFC Promotion Board. Meanwhile, on 29 June 2020, upon reaching his 3-year minimum TIG requirement, he submitted a DA Form 4187 requesting reclassification to MOS 79T, which was not approved. As a result, he was boarded as 11B for the FY21 SFC Promotion Board. According to the promotion board results, the applicant was ranked 10th among his peers; however, he did not get promoted then. Additionally, records show that his PMOS was changed to 88M effective 11 May 2021. As such, he was boarded as 88M for the FY22 SFC Promotion Board during which he was also selected. According to that board results, he was ranked 4th among his peers. On 3 November 2021, soldier successfully graduated from the Senior Leader Course. Furthermore, records indicate on 3 May 2022, his PMOS was changed to 79T per his request. As a result, he was boarded as 79T for the FY23 SFC Promotion board was, hence he ranked 4th among his peers. c. Promotion requirements for Sergeant (SGT) to Sergeant Major (SGM) are established under the provisions of AR 600-8-19, Paragraph 7-20. On the other hand, policies, and procedure for the management of career field 79T and the SQI 4 Non Career Recruiter Course are outlined in National Guard Regulation (NGR) 601-1 (Army National: Guard Strength Maintenance Program.) (1) Pursuant to AR 600-8-19, Para 7-20, promotion criteria to Sergeant (SGT) through Sergeant Major (SGM) include but are not limited to: being considered and placed in in the selection objective of the current promotion list, unless selected from a previous list; being in promotable status in accordance with paragraph 7–4; participating satisfactorily in the active ARNG in the next lower grade; meet required time in grade (TIG), time in service (TIS), distributed leader course (DLC), PME (professional military education), and cumulative enlisted service (CES). (2) In accordance with (IAW) NGR 601-1, Para 4-8, the following are, some but not all, requirements for SQI 4 ARNG Non-career Recruiting and Retention NCOs (RRNCO) prior to obtaining the MOS 79T: (a) be a T32 FTNGD (Full-Time national Guard Duty) Production RRNCO serving in a valid 79T position; (b) have graduated from the ARNG Non-career Recruiter course; (c) demonstrate at least 18 months as a T32 production RRNCO with a senior recruiting and retention badge; (d) meet all requirements of DA PAM 611-21 for MOS 79T. Exception to Policy may be considered on a case-by-case basis for line scores. d. Based on the TIG requirement for promotion to SFC / E-7 (36 months) IAW AR 600-8-19, the applicant was ineligible for promotion to E-7 during the FY20 Promotion Board. Besides, he did not complete SLC until 3 November 2021. As a result, he was non-selected for promotion during that time. Nevertheless, he was selected consecutively for the FY21 and FY22 Promotion Boards. Yet, he was not promoted during those periods due to not ranking high enough on the promotion list. Whereas the applicant alleges that his promotion to E-7 promotion was affected by the delayed conversion of his PMOS to 79T, it should however be noted that he was ranked 4th consecutively while boarded as 88M and 79T. It is arguable that Soldier’s boarding as 79T during the FY 21 and 22 Promotion Boards might have ranked him higher on the order of merit lists. However, it is uncertain that he would have been promoted then. Conversely, it is unclear as to the delay in processing Soldier’s request for PMOS change to 79T. In fact, it appears that Soldier met individual requirements set forth in NGR 601-1, Para 4-8 at the time the DA 4187 was submitted. Soldier was hired as a T32 FTNGD RRNCO, therefore was serving in a valid 79T position. He graduated from the ARNG Non-career Recruiter course effective 15 May 2015. Prior to his PMOS conversion request to 79T, Soldier had served over 18 months as production recruiter. He was awarded the senior recruiter and retention badge effective 31 August 2018. In addition, Soldier also met all requirements of DA PAM 611-p21 and NGR 600-200 for MOS 79T. Yet, on this issue, the State commented that Soldier did not have the required credits to convert to 79T. e. This office contacted ARARNG to further inquire about this matter. The State opined that Soldier’s non-selection during the FY21 Promotion Board was due to not meeting TIG requirements for promotion to SFC and failing his APFT. Unlike Soldier’s allegation about a reserved SLC seat for May 2020 that was canceled due to COVID-19, the State provided a screenshot of Soldier’s ATTRS (Army Training Requirements and Resources System) showing he was not enrolled for SLC in 2020. Instead, it shows he requested a SLC seat for 2021, however was not confirmed. Regarding Soldier’s OML (Order of Merit List) sequence number, the State noted it is impossible to assert with certainty that the applicant would have been placed higher on the OML, had his DA Form 4187 been completed in 2020. In conclusion, the State highlighted that Soldier could not have been promoted sooner than 3 November 2021, his SLC graduation date. f. Similarly, after consultation with the ARNG Enlisted Policy Branch about this matter, it determined that Soldier could not have been promoted in 2020 due to not meeting eligibility requirements IAW AR 600-8-19. While highlighting there was an administrative oversight relating to Soldier’s PMOS conversion, the ARNG Enlisted Policy Branch considers however that the consequential effect of that discrepancy was not such as to cause a substantial injustice that warrants a DOR adjustment. g. From the above, it is clear that the applicant’s claim for a DOR adjustment to 15 July 2020 is unwarranted. Also, while a timely conversion of Soldier’s PMOS could have led to a higher placement on the OML, it is however impossible to confidently assert that it would have resulted in an early promotion. Meanwhile, with regard to Soldier’s PMOS change, it emerges from the above that he met the requirements outlined in NGR 601-21, Para 4-8 for obtention of MOS 79T. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that an administrative oversight likely resulted in this delay. With respect to qualifying scores for MOS 79T, DA Pamphlet 611-21 (DA PAM), Military Occupational Classification and Structure, (22 November 2017), Chapter 10, Section C, Para 10-79T reflects the requirement being a minimum score of 110 in aptitude area GT waivable to 100 and 96 in aptitude area ST on ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) tests administered on and after 2 January 2002. According to Soldier’s ASVAB test results (15 June 2012), he obtained an overall score of 112 in the general technical (GT) aptitude area. g. In definitive, this office recommends disapproval of Soldier’s request for a DOR adjustment to 15 July 2020. Although the administrative oversight likely affected the Soldier, due to no fault of his own, the effect of that delay is not such that a DOR adjustment is warranted. This opinion was developed in coordination with ARARNG and the ARNG Enlisted Policy Division. 4. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to submit a rebuttal and/or additional comments. He responded via email and stated: His original DA Form 4187 for conversion to 79T was dated 20200629 and was never sent forward to NGB for approval. The 4187 he sent for 79T conversion on 20220405 was sent to NGB and approved. This was the identical 4187 that was sent originally. The State IG’s office did a full investigation and agreed that he was discriminated against and that he would have been converted if his original 4187 got submitted and given the same opportunity as his peers. He would have been eligible to promote on 20211103 if converted in 2020. The FY21 and FY22 79T E-6 to E-7 promotion lists were both exhausted. Every soldier regardless of OML was promoted. He placed 228 on the FY21 OML ahead of SSG Re__ who placed 214 and promoted 20210415. He placed 228 on the FY22 OML ahead of SSG Ne__ who placed 236 and promoted 20220909. He has attached all supporting documents to validate. If he would have been given the equal opportunity to convert in 2020, he would have promoted 20211103. He provides the FY22 promotion/selection list and two unsigned and unapproved DA Forms 4187. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The applicant held MOS 88M, 11B, and later 79T. He was considered by the FY21 SFC Promotion Board as an 11B and ranked 10th among his peers. He was alco considered by the FY22 SFC Promotion Board as an 88M and was ranked 4th among his peers. On 3 May 2022, his PMOS was changed to 79T per his request. As a result, he was boarded as 79T for the FY23 SFC Promotion board was, ranked 4th among his peers, and he was promoted to SFC/E-7 in MOS 79T, in the ARNG on 10 July 2023. The Board reviewed and was persuaded by the NGB advisory official’s finding that the applicant could not have been promoted in 2020 due to not meeting eligibility requirements in accordance with AR 600-8-19. Although the administrative oversight likely affected him, due to no fault of his own, the effect of that delay is not such that a DOR adjustment is warranted as the consequential effect of that discrepancy was not such as to cause a substantial injustice that warrants a DOR adjustment. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING xx: xx: xx: 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. 8/29/2023 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, prescribes policies and procedures governing promotions and reductions of Army enlisted personnel. Paragraph Para 7-20, promotion criteria to Sergeant (SGT) through Sergeant Major (SGM) include but are not limited to: being considered and placed in in the selection objective of the current promotion list, unless selected from a previous list; being in promotable status in accordance with paragraph 7–4; participating satisfactorily in the active ARNGUS in the next lower grade; meet required time in grade (TIG), time in service (TIS), distributed leader course (DLC), professional military education (PME), and cumulative enlisted service (CES). 2. National Guard Regulation 601-1, Army National Guard Strength Management, covers the ARNG strength management program and integrates all the recruiting and retention programs, policies, and procedures necessary for developing and implementing a successful strength management program at the State level. Paragraph 4-8, the following are, some but not all, requirements for SQI 4 ARNG Non-career Recruiting and Retention NCOs (RRNCO) prior to obtaining the MOS 79T: (a) be a T32 FTNGD production RRNCO serving in a valid 79T position; (b) have graduated from the ARNG Non-career Recruiter course; (c) demonstrate at least 18 months as a T32 production RRNCO with a senior recruiting and retention badge; (d) meet all requirements of DA PAM 611-21 for MOS 79T. Exception to Policy may be considered on a case-by-case basis for line scores. 4. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//