IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011895 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, * Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) sergeant first class (SFC) Promotion Selection Board (PSB) * waive requirement of Senior Leaders Course (SLC) for Professional Military Education (PME) promotion prerequisite * promotion to the rank of SFC/E-7 with the Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 November 2017 * back pay and allowances for difference between the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)E/-6 and SFC * all retirement documents and DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect rank and pay grade of SFC and DOR of 1 November 2017 * a personal appearance before the Board via video or telephone APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Army Retired Identification Card * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), 1 January 2021 * ERB (not legible) viewed by the FY17 SFC PSB * ERB for Master Sergeant (MSG) * Assignment audit report * Self-authored statement * Application index * Applicant's sworn statement * Excerpt from Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) * Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 17-062 * Secretariat for Department of the Army Selection Boards Memorandum, Subject: Field After Action Review (AAR) – FY17 Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) SFC Promotion Board * DA form 2166-9-2 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) (SSG through First Sergeant (1SG)/MSG) ending 2 September 2016 * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 2 May 2016 * Statement from Sergeant Major (SGM) (Retired) - * Description of the () Notary Public Stamp and Seal * STAB endorsement memorandum from Major (MAJ) - * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) from Captain (CPT) - * Text messages from SSG - * FY17 SFC PSB results * Email from MAJ * Email to Command Sergeant Major (CSM) - * E-mail to CSM I- O-, 7 September 2022 * E-mail to CSM I-O-, 9 September 2022 * Text message from CSM I- O- * FY17 SFC Board File * ERB (not legible) * ERB, 1 January 2021 * ERB MSG - * Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) screenshot (not legible) * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 10 December 2019 * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 2 January 2019 * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 2 January 2018 * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 2 September 2017 * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 2 September 2016 * DA Form 2166-9-2 ending 2 May 2016 * DA Form 2166-8 (NCOER) ending 6 August 2015 * DA Form 2166-8 ending 6 August 2014 * DA Form 2166-8 ending 6 August 2013 * DA Form 2166-8 ending 31 May 2012 * DA Form 2166-8 ending 30 June 2011 * DA form 2166-8 ending 30 June 2010 * Awards on ERB * DA Form 4980-14 (Army Commendation Medal Certificate) with DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) dated 18 October 2016 * DA Form 4980-14 with DA Form 638 dated 24 September 2012 * DA Form 4980-14 with DA Form 638 dated 28 August 2015 * DA Form 4980-14 with DA Form 638 dated 1 November 2011 * DA Form 4980-18 (Army Achievement Medal Certificate) with DA Form 638 dated 7 May 2011 * DA Form 4980-18 with DA Form 638 dated 18 May 2009 * DA Form 4980-18 with DA Form 638 dated 26 April 2008 * DA Form 4980-18 with DA Form 638 dated 13 August 2009 * DA Form 4980-18 with DA Form 638 dated 18 September 2007 * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Permanent Orders Number 215-06 * Permanent Orders Number 313-03 * Permanent Orders Number 353-11 * Headquarters (HQs), Task Force Eagle Lift Permanent Orders Number 072- 32 * HQs, Task Force Eagle Lift Permanent Orders Number 072-33 * HQs, 602nd Aviation Support Battalion Permanent Orders Number 055-01 * 2nd Battalion, 210th Aviation Regiment Permanent Orders Number 354-35 * HQs, 602nd Aviation Support Battalion Permanent Orders Number 327-07 * North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Non-Article 5 Medal certificate * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for DD Form 214 ending 20 March 1993 * U.S. Army Support Activity, Joint Base Langley-Eustis Permanent Orders Number 014-25 * HQs, Task Force Eagle Lift Permanent Orders Number 140-02 * DD Form 214 for service ending 20 March 1993 * DD Form 214 for service ending 5 January 2005 * DD Form 214 for service ending 17 July 1997 * Military and Civilian Education of ERB * Aviation Technology Associate in Applied Science Degree with transcripts * Equal Opportunity Leaders Course certificate * Master Resilience Training Course certificate * Instructor Certification certificate * Army Basic Instructor Course certificate * Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor Advance Leaders Course (ALC) certificate with DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * ALC Common Core certificate * Warrior Leader Course certificate * Aircraft Structural Maintenance Apprentice Course certificate * HQs, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox Orders Number 231-0440 * 64th Adjutant General (AG) Replacement Company Orders Number 264-002 * Certificate card (not legible) * Military Retirement Records * DA Form 2339 (Application for Voluntary Retirement) * Installation Management Command (IMCOM)-Pacific Region, U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys Orders Number 077-0002 * IMCOM-Pacific Region, U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys Orders Number 077- 0001 * IMCOM-Pacific Region, U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys Orders Number 184- 0003 * DD Form 214 for service ending 31 December 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states in effect, he requests the a waiver for SLC PME requirement for promotion to the rank of SFC under the Select, Train, Educate, Promote (STEP) policy as he was not afforded the opportunity to attend SLC, a STAB for the FY17 SFC PSB, promotion to the rank of SFC with the DOR of 1 November 2017, and the correction of all of his retirement documents to reflect his rank as SFC to include his DD Form 214. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board via video or telephonically. The first injustice - his FY17 SFC PSB board file was intentionally sabotaged on 31 May 2017 by the officer in charge of the battalion S1 and SSG - when his position assignment was changed from platoon sergeant. The second injustice – denial of a STAB for the FY17 SFC PSB by CSM -. U.S. Army HRC CSM and CSM -, 3rd General Support Aviation Battalion (GSAB), 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB). The third injustice – threatened with a career ending ultimatum when on 18 August 2017 he was told if he pursued a STAB, he would receive a relief for cause NCOER. If he dropped the STAB request, he would remain a platoon sergeant. 3. A review of the applicant's service records shows: a. With prior enlisted U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Air Force Reserve (USAFR), and U.S. Air National Guard of the United States (ANGUS) service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 23 June 2005 and had continuous service through extensions and reenlistments. b. On 26 November 2011, Orders Number 330-035, issued by Task Force Thunder, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, the applicant was promoted to the rank of SSG, effective on with a DOR of 1 December 2011. c. On 9 December 2014, the applicant completed the Structured Self Development Level 3 course. d. DA Form 2166-9-2 for evaluation period of 7 August 2015 through 2 May 2016 shows the applicant was assigned to B Company, 602nd Aviation Support Battalion (ASB), Camp Humphreys, Korea. He was evaluated as an Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor at skill level 30. His senior rater recommended him to be programed for SLC and to promote ahead of peers. Successive assignments were Platoon Sergeant, Production Control Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (PC NCOIC), Recruiter. e. DA Form 2166-9-2 for evaluation period of 3 May through 2 September 2016 shows the applicant was assigned to B Company, 602nd ASB, Camp Humphreys. He was evaluated as an Aircraft Component Repair Supervisor at skill level 40. His daily duties show he serves as Component Repair Platoon Maintenance Supervisor. His senior rater commented to send him to SLC immediately and promote to SFC. Successive assignments were Platoon Sergeant, PC NCOIC, and Drill Sergeant. f. DA Form 2166-9-2 for evaluation period of 3 September 2016 through 2 September 2017 shows the applicant was assigned to D Company, 3rd General Support Aviation Battalion (GSAB), 82nd CAB, Fort Bragg, NC. He was evaluated as the Component Repair Platoon Sergeant at skill level 40. He was selected by the Battalion CSM to serve as the Component Repair Platoon Sergeant over two senior SSGs. His senior rater stated he should be sent to SLC and promote to SFC immediately. g. DA Form 2166-9-2 for evaluation period of 3 September 2017 through 2 January 2018 shows the applicant was assigned to D Company, 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB, Fort Bragg. He was evaluated as the Platoon Sergeant at skill level 40. He was selected to serve as the Component Repair Platoon Sergeant over two senior SSGs by the chain of command. His senior rater stated he outperformed all NCOs serving in SFC positions and to promote him to SFC and send to SLC immediately. h. DA Form 2166-9-2 for evaluation period of 3 January 2018 through 2 January 2019 shows the applicant was assigned to D Company, 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB, Fort Bragg. He was evaluated as the Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor at skill level 30. He served simultaneously as the component repair platoon sergeant and structural sergeant for 84 consecutive days. His senior rater stated to promote to SFC immediately and send to SLC at the earliest opportunity. Successive assignment were platoon sergeant, PC NCOIC and Recruiter. i. On 31 July 2019, Orders Number 212-61, issued by HQs, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Bragg, the applicant was assigned to 2nd Aviation Replacement Inbound, Camp Humphreys, Korea, effective 10 December 2019. j. DA Form 2166-9-2 for evaluation period of 3 January 2019 through 10 December 2019 shows the applicant was assigned to D Company, 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB, Fort Bragg. He was evaluated as the Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor at skill level 30. He was selected over two SSGs to fill in as the platoon sergeant on numerous occasions due to his leadership competencies. His senior rater stated to promote and send to SLC with peers. k. On 17 March 2020, Orders Number 077-0002, issued by IMCOM-Pacific, U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys, the applicant was placed on the retired list, effective 1 January 2021 in the rank of SSG with a DOR of 1 December 2011. l. The applicant was honorably retired on 31 December 2020 and assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired Reserve) for sufficient years of service for retirement. DD Form 214 shows the applicant completed 15-years, 6-months, and 8-days of active service with 4 years, 6 months, and 14 days of prior active service. It also shows in items: * 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank): SSG * 4b (Pay Grade): E6 * 12i (Effective Date of Pay Grade): 1 December 2011 * 18 (Remarks): Retired list grade SSG 4. The applicant provides: a. Contents of application: (1) U.S. Government identification and privilege retired card which show the applicant in the rank of SSG, effective 6 January 2021. (2) ERB dated 1 January 2021 which shows the applicant's assignment history, awards, and personal information. (3) ERB viewed by the FY17 SFC PSB after fraudulent changes were made (not legible) dated 2017 which shows the applicant was assigned: * 17 October 2015 B Company, 602nd ASB, Seoul, Korea as an Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor skill level 3 * 15 June 2016 as an Aircraft Component Repair Supervisor skill level 4 * 28 October 2016 assigned to 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB, Fort Bragg as a platoon sergeant skill level 4 * 2 January 2018 as Aircraft Structural Repairer skill level 3 (4) MSG ERB dated 30 September 2021 shows the service member completed SLC in 2012 and was promoted to the rank of SFC, effective 1 November 2017. While assigned to the 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB and was assigned as the: * 19 August 2015 as a section sergeant skill level 3 * 18 January 2016 as a platoon sergeant skill level 4 * 20 September 2016 as a platoon sergeant forward Djibouti skill level 4 * 15 January 2017 as Aircraft Power Plant Supervisor skill level 3 * 5 September 2017 as Aircraft Component Repair Supervisor skill level 4 The ERB to shows he fraudulently stole the applicant's duty position for the FY15 SFC PSB. MSG - then SSG was deployed on a mission and not assigned to the company platoon sergeant position. (5) Audit report from the U.S. Army HRC, written notes states in 2017 the report shows the applicant was stationed in Basic Training, the only time unknown updated user id. The report shows an unknown system user id updated the applicant's record: * On 3 May 2017 to show the applicant was assigned on 28 October 2016 to 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB, Fort Bragg, NC * On 4 May 2017 to shows the applicant was assigned on 2 August 2005 to A Company, 1st Battalion, 46th Infantry Regiment, Fort Knox, KY * On 4 May 2017 to show the applicant was assigned on 28 July 2005 to E Company, 1st Battalion, 46th Infantry Regiment, Fort Knox, KY * On 4 May 2017 to show the applicant was assigned on 23 June 2005 to A Company, 46th Adjutant General Battalion Reception, Fort Knox, KY (6) Self-authored statement dated 9 September 2022 states he is requesting the Board review all the evidence and make an unbiased decision in his request and to understand why he feels so strongly that he should have been selected for promotion to the rank of SFC and not SSG - who retired as a MSG. The threats of the relief for cause NCOER and having to go before a Qualitative Management Program board could have jeopardized his retirement which is why at the time, he did not pursue the STAB further. (7) Applicant's sworn statement for evidence of injustice and integrity violations, he reported to the 3rd GSAB, 82nd CAB on 28 October 2016 in the rank of SSG, he was immediately assigned to the platoon sergeant position (SFC) at the direction of CSM . Prior to this assignment he was assigned to B Company, 602 ASB, 2nd CAB, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Humphreys, Korea, where he held the SFC Component Repair Supervisor position and received a Most Qualified NCOER which was available to the FY17 SFC PSB. On 11 April 2017, SSG who was assigned to a SSG Section Sergeant position violated the Army Value when he requested the applicant to write a fraudulent APFT for him due to being on a permanent medical profile in order to attend a military school. This occurred 5-days before the board file opened for review and validation. The applicant notified his chain of command of the situation. An investigation was conducted and SSG - received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and was reassigned to another battalion. Prior to the applicant departing to the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, LA on 6 May 2017, he reviewed and validated his board file. SSG - did not go to JRTC, he remained at Fort Bragg, NC. On 31 May 2017, the applicant's board file was changed without authorization which made the board file no longer constituted and it becomes a material error under the provision of AR 600-8-19, paragraph 4-13 c and d (2). The applicant could not have reasonably discovered the administrative error which made this a material error not an immaterial error due to the unauthorized changes. On 1 June 2017, the applicant pulled his ERB and noticed his position had been changed effective 31 May 2017. His command investigated and it was found SSG requested the S1 to make the changes without authorization. The applicant immediately notified HRC Promotions Branch, and he was advised that he would have to wait for the board results before any action could be taken. On 15 August 2017, when the FY17 SFC PSB results were published the applicant contacted HRC to inquire about a STAB and was immediately denied by CSM - who contacted the applicant's CSM channel and informed them he was being borderline insubordinate. The applicant's battalion CSM, CSM - told him to stop pursuing the STAB immediately or he was going to be replaced as the platoon sergeant and find a new job in a different battalion. On 21 August 2017, the applicant contacted the Inspector General Office on Fort Bragg, NC and he was informed that unless the threat was in writing or someone else heard it, it was hearsay and recommended the applicant drop the whole thing because it could get worse for him in the long run, so the applicant stopped pursuing it as he did not want to risk losing his retirement and benefits with 2- years remaining in the service. (8) Excerpt from AR 600-8-19 dated 25 April 2017, section IV (Processing Request for Standby Advisory Board Consideration), paragraph 4-13 c states an administrative error is immaterial, if the Soldier, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error. Paragraph 4-13d states STABs are convened to consider records of those: (2) states Soldiers who records were not properly constituted, due to material error, when reviewed by the regular board. Paragraph 4-13 g. the following does not constitute material error and will not be reasons for reconsideration: incorrect data on ERB. (9) MILPER Message Number 17-062 (FY17 RA USAR AGR SFC Promotion Board Announcement states ERB updates suspense is no later than 1700 hours on eastern standard time 31 May 2017. The purpose is to provide guidance and procedures in support to the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), NCOs will be considered for denial of continued service when documents are in their Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) such as a GOMOR or Relief for Cause NCOER. (10) Secretariat for Department of the Army Selection Board memorandum dated 23 June 2017, Subject: Field AAR-FY17 RA AGR SFC Promotion Board, the issues and observations of the board was missing critical information such as errors on the ERBs such as outdated Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and Army Body Composition Program (ABCP) data, incorrect or inaccurate duty descriptions and positions. The board recommended the unit Human Resource supervisor should conduct review of the board files and provide feedback to the NCOs and their supervisors on necessary changes or corrections. (11) DA Form 2166-9-2 rating period 3 May 2016 through 2 September 2016 shows the applicant was rated as an Aircraft Component Repair Supervisor, skill level 40. His rater stated he was selected over three SSGs as the platoon production control NCO. He motivated Soldiers to better themselves using Army programs and civilian education. His senior rater stated he was the number one SSG in the platoon. While working in positions above his grade, he could be counted on to excel and accomplish the mission. He should be sent to SLC immediately and promote to SFC. Successive assignments for the applicant were platoon sergeant, PC NCO and drill sergeant. (12) DA Form 2166-9-2 rating period 7 August 2015 through 2 May 2016 shows the applicant was rated as an Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor, skill level 30. His rater stated he was number two of six SSGs currently rated. His senior rater stated he should be programed for SLC and promote ahead of peers. Successive assignments were platoon sergeant, PC NCO and recruiter. (13) Statement from SGM T- R- stated he was the CSM for the 3rd GSAB during the period of August 2015 through June 2017. The applicant was assigned as the Component Repair Platoon Sergeant in October 2016 and remained in the position until SGM - was reassigned. The applicant's ERB reflected the assignment until 1 June 2017 when it was discovered CPT changed his duty position on 31 May 2017 without authority. The applicant's ERB should have reflected his platoon sergeant assignment at the time of the FY17 SFC PSB. SGM recommends the applicant's records be presented to the Board to correct the injustice. (14) Statement from MAJ - stated he recommended the applicant be promoted to the rank of SFC due to his performance and potential. During his time as the commander the applicant was the Component Repair Platoon Sergeant. During the period of 11 April through June 2017, he investigated allegations involving SSG - and it was found he was guilty of an integrity violation and he received a local GOMOR. During the period of 6 though 31 May 2017, he and the applicant participated in an exercise at JRTC and to his knowledge the applicant certified his board file. June 2017, he was informed the applicant's duty position on his ERB was changed from a SFC position to a SSG position. An investigation revealed CPT - changed the applicant's duty position and placed SSG - into the position at the request of SSG . It is his belief the applicant was not selected for promotion due to the changes that were made to his ERB after he certified his board file. The PSB did not have accurate information to assess the applicant as a direct result of the negligence of the unit's adjutant and the immoral actions of SSG -. The applicant should be considered for promotion to the rank of SFC based on his time served in SFC positions and performing at the level consistent of that grade. The error in the applicant's board file was an administrative error, not an immaterial error because the changes to his ERB occurred after he had certified his board file. (15) DA Form 2823 from CPT authored on 31 October 2022 stated he was assigned to 3rd GSAB during the period of 4 October 2016 though March 2018 as the Component Repair Platoon Leader and company Executive Officer (XO). A majority of that time the applicant was the platoon sergeant. In April 2017, he was informed of an integrity violation of SSG - where he requested a forged APFT due to the medical profile as he needed a passing APFT to attend a military school. He informed the company commander, who investigated the incident which resulted in SSG - receiving a GOMOR. The applicant certified his board file prior to his departure for JRTC in May 2017. While at JRTC there was little to no internet capabilities for the applicant to reverify his board file. Upon return to Fort Bragg, the applicant noticed his duty position on his ERB had been changed. With the board file validation window being closed the applicant could not make any changes to his record prior to the board convening. An investigation discovered the applicant's platoon sergeant position was incorrectly assigned to SSG -. When the results of the FY17 SFC PSB were release, the applicant was not selected for promotion. The applicant told him he wanted to pursue a STAB but he was informed by CSM - not to pursue it because the errors on his ERB do not constitute a material error thus the request would not be granted. (16) Text message with SSG - on 11 April 2017, the applicant told SSG his request to write a diagnostic APFT bothered him as he believed he was going about it the wrong way. If he could pass the APFT he should take it. SSG - responded the APFT was for career progression and he would come back to take the APFT. (17) FY17 SFC selected list shows SSG - was selected for promotion and his sequence number was three. (18) E-mail to MAJ - on 2 September 2022, the applicant told MAJ - for years it bothered him that his FY17 SFC PSB board file was compromised when she changed his duty position and placed SSG - into his position. He wanted to know why she did that. He had 30-years time in service and retired at the rank of SSG. MAJ - responded, she was sorry her actions or that of her team effected his career progression. She requested more information as she moved around a few time in 2017. The applicant provided his unit of assignment at the time. (19) E-mail to CSM - dated 1 September 2022, the applicant stated he was not selected for promotion on the FY17 SFC PSB and was denied a STAB. He could not figure out why he never made SFC with 30-years TIS, broadening assignments and military education when SSG - was selected with a GOMOR and was not most qualified on his NCOER. He asked the CSM why he was not promoted and was denied a STAB. The STAB he requested was under the provisions of AR 600-8-19, paragraph 4-13 c due to his inability to correct changes to his ERB minutes before the board convened. He also reminded the CSM that he called CSM - and the applicant was threatened with a Relief for Cause NCOER if he did not stop pursuing the STAB. (20) E-mail to CSM - dated 7 September 2022 stated he was one of his platoon sergeants from the time the CSM arrived in June 2017 until the applicant's departure in December 2019 and he felt the CSM took him for granted. He wanted to know why the CSM did not stand up for him when he was contacting HRC to inquire about a STAB. Instead, the CSM threatened him with a Relief for Cause NCOER and he would be looking for a new job at a different battalion if he pursued the STAB. (21) E-mail to CSM dated 9 September 2022, the applicant went over the situation back in 2017 when SSG - requested a fraudulent APFT and the SSG received a GOMOR. Then he convinced the S1 to assign him to the platoon sergeant position which was verified with an audit. He remined the CSM of his request for a STAB and his contacting HRC numerous times because no one had the courage or integrity to stand up for what was right. The CSM never took the time to listen to the applicant instead he listened to CSM - and threatened the applicant. He requested the CSM to write a letter to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to explain his faults for not standing up for the applicant and giving him a choice between a relief for cause or the platoon sergeant job. (22) Text message with CSM -, the CSM stated he never told the applicant he was borderline insubordinate, but he told him that was what he was told about the applicant. The CSM did not want to form an opinion without all the facts, and the applicant responded that he understood higher up forced the situation and he was sorry the CSM was put into the situation, but he wished the CSM would have listened to his side of the situation. b. FY17 SFC Board File provided to the Board for consideration for promotion to SFC. (1) iPERMS screenshot (not legible) (2) DA Form 2166-8 rating period 7 August 2014 through 6 August 2015 shows the applicant was rated as an Instructor/Writer, skill level 3. His rater stated the applicant earned his Associate Degree in Aviation Applied Science from North Central Institute with a grade point average of 3.5. His senior rater stated the applicant should be promoted to the rank of SFC with peers and to send to SLC to further enhance his NCO capabilities. Positions the applicant could best serve the Army were platoon sergeant, drill sergeant, or PC NCO. (3) DA Form 2166-8 rating period 7 August 2013 through 6 August 2014 shows the applicant was rated as an Instructor/Writer, skill level 30. His senior rater stated the applicant should be promoted ahead of peers and to send to SLC at the first opportunity to enhance his professional growth. Positions the applicant could best serve the Army were squad leader, Avionics Maintenance Supervisor, and PC NCO. (4) DA Form 2166-8 rating period 1 June 2012 through 6 August 2013 shows the applicant was rated as an Instructor/Writer, skill level 30. His senior rater stated the applicant should be promoted with peer and select for advanced military schools should slots become available. Positions the applicant could best serve the Army were recruiter, observer/coach trainer, and squad leader. (5) DA Form 2166-8 rating period 1 July 2011 through 31 May 2012 shows the applicant was rated as an Aircraft Structural Repairer, skill level 30. His rater stated the applicant served as the squad leader for 50-days without a loss of continuity His senior rater stated the applicant should be promoted to the rank of SFC ahead of his peers and to send to ALC ahead of peers. Positions the applicant could best serve the Army were service school instructor, PC NCO, and recruiter. (6) DA Form 2166-8 rating period 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2011 shows the applicant was rated as an Aircraft Structural Repairer, skill level 20. His rater stated the applicant was selected to serve as the company rear detachment NCO in charge for 20- days for 10 non-deploying Soldiers. His senior rater stated the applicant should be promoted to the rank of SSG and to send to ALC now. Positions the applicant could best serve the Army were squad leader, drill sergeant, and service school instructor. (7) DA Form 2166-8 rating period 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2010 shows the applicant was rated as an Aircraft Structural Repairer Supervisor, skill level 20. His senior rater stated the applicant should be promoted ahead of peers and to send to ALC now. Positions the applicant could best serve the Army were Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM) squad leader, service school instructor, and recruiter. c. Awards earned and presented to the applicant for meritorious achievement throughout his career. d. Military and Civilian Education on ERB showing the applicant's military and civilian education completed throughout his career. e. Military retirement records: (1) DA Form 2339 shows the applicant in the rank of SSG/E6 with the DOR of 1 December 2011 had a desired retirement date of 1 January 2021 with 20-years and 23-days of active service for retirement and 11-years, 3-months, and 1-days of inactive service for basic pay for a total of 31-years, 3-months, and 24-days of service for basic pay. (2) Orders Number 077-0001 shows the applicant's retirement/ separation date was 31 December 2020. (3) Orders Number 184-0003 amended Orders Number 077-0001 to change his arrival date to 23 October 2020. 5. On 27 April 2023, in the processing of this case, HRC, provided an advisory opinion regarding the applicant's requests to be promoted to the rank of SFC with the DOR of 1 November 2017 with retroactive pay and benefits. The advisory official stated administrative relief is not warranted. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion on the FY17 SFC promotion board. The applicant indicated a STAB was denied due to AR 600-8-19, that incorrect data on the ERB does not constitute a material error and will not be reasons for reconsideration. He contends the changing of his duty position on his ERB was the reason for his non- selection. He also believes the AAR applies to his situation when it described data on the ERB being incorrect. However, the AAR addresses incorrect or inaccurate duty descriptions and position on the ERB. The inconsistencies can only be addressed if the duty position or description does not match the correlating NCOER for the rating period. The applicant did not have an NCOER for either duty position, therefore the board could not have concluded that the assignment on his ERB was either incorrect or inaccurate. The ERB is not a source document, meaning it cannot be used to validate data as it pulls data from multiple systems each time it is populated. AR 600-8-19 is specific in its language about the ERB, and a STAB has never been conducted because the ERB contained incorrect information. Due to time constraints a board member has to consider a Soldier's record, most often the ERB is utilized for a quick glance at the Soldier. The commendatory and evaluation documents receive the most scrutiny. The applicant's record did not contain a platoon sergeant NCOER for the FY17 board as his first NCOER as a platoon sergeant did not occur until 2 September 2017, which was in time for the FY18 SFC promotion board where again he was not selected for promotion. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion because of reason beyond his ERB. The request for a STAB was properly denied in accordance with regulatory guidelines, it is the opinion of the Senor Enlisted Promotions that a STAB is not warranted or justified. 6. On 1 May 2023, the Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division, provided the applicant the advisory opinion for his review and comment. The applicant responded on 6 June 2023 stating in effect, he requested a STAB in accordance with AR 600-8-19, paragraph c and d2 (material error) as he verified the accuracy of his ERB prior to his board file closing and sometime after his verification and the board and someone fraudulently changed his ERB to remove him from the platoon sergeant position. This constitutes the material error. However, HRC continuously references paragraph 4-13g (4) which states incorrect data on the ERB does not constitute a material error and will not be reason for consideration. He could only agree with the argument that it was the reason for his STAB request, but it was not. The error occurred when the unit S1 and SSG changed his duty position without authorization from anyone in the chain of command. He validated his board file prior to attending JRTC and he could not have discovered the administrative error prior to the convening of the board. Once his records were fraudulently changed his records were no longer constituted. CSMs are the persons responsible for platoon sergeant and they are the one that are authorized to change position assignments. The FY17 SFC PSB AAR stated a large number of discrepancies were identified such as a host of errors on the ERBs such as outdated APFT and ABCP data, incorrect or inaccurate duty descriptions and positions. HRC stated inconsistencies could only be addressed if the duty position or description did not match the NCOER for the rating period. HRC also stated the ERB was not a source document, it could not be used to validate data as it pulls data from multiple systems. HRC has never conducted a STAB because of the ERB containing incorrect information. When the board convened, he was in the platoon sergeant position which was validated on his ERB but he had not yet received a NCOER for the position as his annual was not due for 4-months. SSG - had never held the position of platoon sergeant except during a 5-month deployment. If you look at his ERB, you can see his duty position did not match up to his or that of MSG - which proves he lied and cheated his way through the system. It is a known fact that when a board looks at a Soldiers records and the ERB is incomplete the board gives it no attention. Every promotion board briefing given by HRC branch managers state to make sure the ERB is updated and dress right dress. If it is not the Soldier will be overlooked and put to the bottom of the pile. Which is what happened to him. HRC's denial letter is a complete contradiction of this. It is true he was not selected for promotion on the FY18 board because he decided to retire and gave it no effort. He is being stonewalled and HRC has not addressed his claim referring to AR 600-8-19, paragraph c and d (2). This regulation is HRC's scapegoat. As he requested the STAB based on paragraph 4-13 c and d (2) as his board file was no longer constituted once an unauthorized change occurred to his validated file and the promotion board never got an accurate assessment of his file. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records, and U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Chief, Enlisted Promotions Branch advisory opinion, the Board concurred with the advising official finding the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion on the FY17 SFC Promotion Board. The Board noted, evidence in the record shows the applicant did not have an NCOER for either of the sited duty positions, as such the selection board would not have known the applicant’s assignment on his enlisted brief (ERB) was an incorrect duty position. The Board agreed the applicant’s ERB is not considered a source document for data validation. 2. The Board found there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s request for promotion to the rank of SFC/E-7 with the Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 November 2017 or back pay and allowances for difference between the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)E/-6 and SFC. Furthermore, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to the applicant’s rank and/or STAB consideration. Based on the advisory opinion and evidence in the record, the Board denied relief. 3. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, 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. 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. Title 10, USC, 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 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. 2. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) in effect at the time, prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. a. Paragraph 1-13f, for Soldiers promoted to PV2 through SGM entitled to a promotion effective date that exceeds 6-months prior to the date of the promotion instrument, the following will be entered in the special instructions: Because the effective date of the promotion exceeds this instrument by more than 6-months, the Defense Joint Military Pay System will automatically pay up to 12-months of back pay entitlements. Your next leave and earnings statement will reflect such payment. If you are due back pay in excess of 12-months, upon receipt of your leave and earnings statement that reflects back pay, provide your servicing finance and accounting office (FAO) with a copy of the instrument. Your servicing FAO will initiate procedures under the provisions of the DOD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14–R, Volume 7A, table 1-4, rule number 12, which will result in you receiving any additional back pay to which you are entitled. b. Paragraph 1-28 (Noncommissioned Officer Education System requirement for promotion and conditional promotion), a. Soldiers (all components) must complete the following PME courses as follows: completion of Structured Self Development (SSD) 3 is an eligibility requirement for promotion consideration to SFC and graduation of the Senior Leaders Course (SLC) is a promotion requirement to SFC. d. There are no military education waivers to attain eligibility for promotion consideration or pin-on. c. Paragraph 4-3 c, the selection board will recommend a specified number of best qualified Soldiers by Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) from the zones of consideration to meet the needs of the Army. The total number selected for each MOS is the projected number the Army needs to maintain its authorized-grade strength. d. Paragraph 4–9, a. Soldier must meet the announced eligibility requirements for board consideration. b. Soldier will review and authenticate his ERB information in accordance with procedures outlined in board announcement messages. c. Soldiers will review their AMHRR online at https://iperms.hrc.army.mil prior to a board. Serving S1, MPD, and/or military HR offices will assist Soldiers by submitting authorized AMHRR documents in accordance with AR 600-8-104. e. Paragraph 4-13, a. The DCS, G1 or designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon determining that a material error existed in a Soldier's AMHRR when the file was reviewed by a selection board. b. For the purpose of this paragraph, HRC is a designee. c. An administrative error is immaterial, if the Soldier, in exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error. d. STABs are convened to consider records of those: * otherwise, eligible Soldiers whose records were not reviewed by a centralized selection board * Soldiers whose records were not properly constituted, due to material error, when reviewed by the regular board * recommended Soldiers on whom derogatory information has developed that may warrant removal from a recommended list f. Reconsideration normally will be granted when one or more of the following conditions existed on the Soldier's AMHRR and was reviewed by a selection board. Soldiers requesting reconsideration under paragraphs (2) through (6) normally will be granted reconsideration only for the most recent board held prior to the Soldier's request. * adverse NCOER or Academic Evaluation Report reviewed by a board was subsequently declared invalid in whole or in part and was determined by the Army Review Boards Agency to constitute a material error * adverse document belonging to another Soldier is filed on the AMHRR * Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 15, administered on or after 1 September 1979 that was designated for file in the local file only but was erroneously filed on the AMHRR reviewed by the board * UCMJ, Article 15 punishment that was wholly set aside before 1 September 1979 and the set aside instrument was not filed on the AMHRR * UCMJ, Article 15 punishment that was wholly set aside on or after 1 September 1979 was filed on the AMHRR when reviewed by the board * court-martial orders were filed in the performance folder of the AMHRR when the findings were "not guilty" * document was filed on the AMHRR that erroneously identified the non-select as AWOL or a deserter * transcript awarding a degree was excluded from the records, if the degree was posted to either the AMHRR or ERB or was seen in hard copy by the board, a STAB is not authorized * absence of an award of a Meritorious Service Medal or higher (initial award only), if the award was recorded on the AMHRR or ERB or was reviewed in hard copy by the board, a STAB is not authorized * mandatory, error-free NCOER (that is, annual, extended annual, change of rater) received by HRC in accordance with specific board military personnel message or regulatory requirements was not posted to the AMHRR * individual was considered in an MOS or Career Progression MOS that is not the Soldier's normal career progression g. The following items do not constitute material error and will not be reasons for reconsideration: * omission of letters of appreciation, commendation, congratulations, or other similar commendatory correspondence * documents that are not derogatory having been filed on the wrong AMHRR * absence of documents (such as transcripts) written, prepared, or computed following the convening of a board * incorrect data on the ERB * failure to review promotion board files by the considered Soldier * absence of the ERB * absence of official photograph or the presence of an outdated photograph * absence of an AER showing completion of an NCOES Course * "complete the record" NCOER is an optional report and the absence of this report will not, under any circum-stances, be a basis for reconsideration * absence of an award for achievement or meritorious service lower than a Meritorious Service Medal * omission of an AER dated 120-days prior to the board convene date 3. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents), prescribes the transition processing function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing required actions in the field to support processing personnel for separation and preparation of separation documents. Paragraph 5-6 (Rules for completing the DD Form 214), d. Block 4: Grade, Rate, or Rank. Verify that active duty grade or rank and pay grade are accurate at time of separation. l (9) Block 12i: Effective Date of Pay Grade. From the most recent promotion document (or reduction instrument), enter the effective date of promotion or reduction to the current pay grade. Do not confuse with date of rank. Soldiers who have served in ranks corporal, first sergeant, or command sergeant major often have a date of rank different from the effective date of pay grade. 4. AR 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 may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220011895 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1