IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 November 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002507 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, correction of his Army National Guard records to show he was transferred to the Retired Reserve as a sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 vice sergeant (SGT)/E-5. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Email exchange * Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter) * NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) FACTS: 1. The applicant states he was discharged from the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) as a sergeant (SGT)/E-5. However, he had completed all required academic training and standards for the next grade. During his waiting, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident during his primary job as a corrections officer for the State of Connecticut Department of Corrections. After 4 months of recovery, he returned to his drill status with limited duties. He continued his duties for the next 4 years with no support from his chain of command with respect to remedial training to go above the standards of his job. During the same period, there were a few lower ranking NCOs (noncommissioned officers) who were promoted to the next rank with less expertise., training and seniority than he had. Upon retirement, his rank should have been sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. The unequitable treatment based on lack of support is mentioned in an email from the senior enlisted advisor, Joint Force Headquarters, “also an injury would not restrict you from getting boarded and then promoted.” He believes the injury that took place upon retirement at the rank of SGT/E-5 is a disgrace based on his 21 years of honorable service and is not sufficient to live an honorable retirement. 2. Having had prior service in the U.S. Air Force, the applicant enlisted in the CTARNG on 24 November 2009, in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5. He served through multiple extensions in a variety of assignments. 3. On 2 September 2021, CTARNG issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter). 4. On 10 September 2021, CTARNG published Orders 0001384310.00 transferring him to the Retired Reserve effective 24 August 2021. His rank is listed as SGT/E-5. 5. He was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 23 August 2021. His NGB Form 22 shows his rank/grade as SGT/E-5 and that he completed 20 years of service for retired pay. 6. On 19 September 2023, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) provided an advisory opinion in the processing of this case. An NGB official recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request to have his retirement grade to be changed to E-7/SFC. a. Soldier argues that he was never promoted to the next higher grade despite completing all training requirements for promotion. He indicates that he got injured in a motor vehicle accident while at his civilian job, which resulted in the limitation of his duties and responsibilities. Soldier claims that he received little to no support from his chain of command during this process. Meanwhile, he reports that a few lower rank Soldiers with less training, expertise, and seniority than him were promoted ahead of him. Soldier deems he was treated inequitably and unfairly as he claims he should be retired to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC). b. On 24 August 2000, Soldier initially enlisted in the Naval Reserve in the grade of E-2. He subsequently joined the Air National Guard (ANG) on 24 September 2002 in the grade of E-3. Soldier’s highest grade held while in the ANG was E-6/SSGT. On 24 November 2009, Soldier enlisted in the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) as 31B, Military Police (MP) in the grade of E-5/SGT. He was assigned to the 143rd MP Company. On 12 May 2012, Soldier successfully completed his basic MP course and became duty MOS qualified. Thereafter, he completed the Warrior Leader Course (WLC) effective 6 September 2014. In addition, Soldier went on to complete the MP Advanced Leader Course on 5 May 2016. Upon reaching 20 years of service effective 23 August 2021, he was honorably discharged and transferred to the Retired Reserve. c. Promotion requirements for Sergeant (SGT) to Sergeant Major (SGM) are established under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19, Para 7-20. As to the guidelines followed by Board members for the evaluation of Soldiers for promotion, they are listed under Para 7-35 of the same regulation. (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 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), PME, and cumulative enlisted service (CES). (2) In accordance with (IAW) AR 600-8-19, Para 7-35, board members will evaluate Soldier performance and potential using the whole Soldier concept. The sum of each Soldier’s qualities and qualifications, matters of record, past performance with the heaviest weight given to the recent past, and the Soldier’s potential to serve in positions of greater responsibility will be considered objectively. d. According to AR 600-8-19, Para 7-7a and 7-7b, TIG is computed from the Soldier’s DOR in the current grade whereas TIS is computed from the Soldier’s PEBD. A review of Soldier’s record brief indicates that his date of rank (DOR) to SGT is 1 May 2006 while his pay entry base date (PEBD) is 24 August 2000. As shown in Table 7-1, a promotion to E-6 requires 18 months of TIG, no TIS, and completion of SSD/DLC 2 and BLC. On the other hand, for a promotion to E-7/SFC, 36 months of TIG and 9 years of TIS coupled with SSD/DLC3 and ALC are required. Based on these requirements, it appears that Soldier met the requirements for promotion board consideration to E-6; henceforth, his placement the selection objective of the promotion lists for consecutive promotion boards. A review of Soldier’s records further shows he has a significant potential and is promotable to the next higher grade. e. Upon contacting the CTARNG to seek further input on this matter, it explained that Soldiers’ selections are based on sequences originated from a military occupational specialty (MOS) level order of merit as well as available vacancies in their respective MOS. The State noted that Soldier never ranked high enough on the order of merit promotion list in order to be selected to fill a vacancy within his respective MOS. To substantiate its claim, the State provided copies of promotion lists (PL) for Fiscal Years (FY) 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. A review of these promotion lists reflects that Soldier’s MOS placement and overall ranking is as follows: 10th with ranking number 152 on FY 17 PL; 9th with ranking number 144 on FY 18 PL; 5th with ranking number 196 on FY 19 PL; 12th with ranking number 235 on FY 20 PL; 22th with ranking number 224 on FY 21 PL. All in all, the State deems that the applicant’s claim for a retroactive promotion to E-7/SFC is unfounded and that he was retired at his proper rank of E-5/SGT. f. There is no doubt that Soldier met the regulatory requirements for promotion consideration to the next higher grade. However, it might be questioned as to why he never ranked high enough on the PLs (promotion list) in order to be selected and promoted to E-6. It is likely that in evaluating Soldier’s potential and performance using the whole concept, the Boards deemed that other Soldiers’ performances were superior. While it is unfortunate that the consecutive promotion boards did not result in Soldier’s selection and promotion to his next higher grade, it is however regulatorily impossible to support Soldier for a retroactive promotion. Besides, it should be noted that Soldier did not meet the mandatory prerequisite (SSD/DLC3) for promotion consideration to E-7. g. In view of the above, there is no substantiating evidence to warrant Soldier’s request. Therefore, this office cannot support this retroactive promotion to E-7 claim. This opinion was coordinated with the CTARNG and the ARNG Enlisted Policy Branch. 7. 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 did not respond. 8. According to NGB Policy memo, 13 May 2021, Subject: Consolidated Enlisted Promotion Policies (PPOM # 21-026), promotions in the ARNG are a function of the State. States will conduct promotion boards under both Administrative and Board Points. 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 concurred with the conclusion of the advisory official that the evidence does not support retroactively promoting the applicant to SSG/E-6 or SFC/E-7. The record shows the applicant was placed on order of merit lists for promotion to SSG/E-6 but was not placed high enough on those lists to receive a promotion based on available positions in the next higher grade. Without being promoted to SSG/E-6 (and absent required military education), he did not become eligible to be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7. The Board determined the applicant’s rank/grade upon discharge from the ARNG was not in error or unjust. 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: Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides for the promotion and reduction of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraphs 7-7a and 7-7b, TIG (time in grade) is computed from the Soldier’s date of rank (DOR) in the current grade whereas TIS (time in service) is computed from the Soldier’s PEBD (pay entry basic date). Table 7-1, a promotion to E-6 requires 18 months of TIG, no TIS, and completion of SSD/DLC 2 (Structured Self Development/ Distributed Leader Course) and BLC (Basic Leader Course). Promotion to E-7/ SFC requires 36 months of TIG and 9 years of TIS coupled with SSD/DLC3 and ALC (Advanced Leader Course) are required. b. Paragraph 7-20, promotion criteria to Sergeant (SGT) through Sergeant Major (SGM) include but are not limited to: being considered and placed 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). c. Paragraph 7-35, board members will evaluate Soldier performance and potential using the whole Soldier concept. The sum of each Soldier’s qualities and qualifications, matters of record, past performance with the heaviest weight given to the recent past, and the Soldier’s potential to serve in positions of greater responsibility will be considered objectively. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230002507 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1