Posted on Feb 17, 2016
Should I be eligible to receive retroactive promotion to Sergeant under guidelines set forth in AR 600-8-19, paras. 3-30, 3-31 f., and 3-34?
24.3K
33
25
3
3
0
I apologize if this is long and dry. So, backstory... Pt test in March passing, flag removed for ABCP. Recommended Promotion board and passed in September, points submitted in October for 1 November promotion. PT Test taken in October, passed. Points submitted in November for 1 December promotion.
Points submitted 30 November at 512, due to upcoming adjustments to prepare for new promotion points systems due to start in January. October's PT test results finally hit 1 December, but a Miscalculation of PT score (no factor of 3rd score calculated) flagged the system as a failing grade (removed from eligibility).
Upon discovery, Dec 2nd, set up a time to do an update with S-1; "Unfortunately" changes had already taken effect, so points could not be resubmitted, even though the record was corrected to put me back on recommendation list. Under old promotion system, update (which settled 4 Dec) would have shown 531 points. Primary zone points came out at 505.
After consultation with HRC by email, I was referred to AR 600–8–19. This is what I discovered.
AR 600-8-19 says:
"3-30 Rules for reinstating soldiers to recommended list" (in order to've be reinstated, you have to be removed, right? I was, by a clerical error, so... Sub para "a" doesn't apply, as I haven't been promoted yet, much less, in error)
"b. A Soldier removed from a list and later exonerated of the basis that caused the removal will be reinstated. To be exonerated, the action that caused the initial removal must've been erroneous or should not have been imposed so that the soldier is free of any wrongdoing."
"c. If the soldier was eligible for promotion prior to reinstatement, the DORand effective date of promotion will be the date of original eligibility."
Furthermore, I was directed to review paragraph 3–31, subparagraph "f" and paragraph 3–34, and it's entirety.
"3–31. Rules for Headquarters, Department of the Army promotion point cutoff scores (Regular Army and United States Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve only)"
"F. No soldier will be promoted as an administrative records correction when a determination is made that their automated promotion score is in accurate as a result of missing personnel or training data. Immediate action must be taken to update the supporting personnel and training databases to capture accurate information so updated automated promotion scores can be utilized to determine the following month's established cutoff scores. For USAR AGR, failure to input promotion points into AGRMIS database will not be sufficient basis for an administrative records correction for promotion."
[This paragraph does not appear to apply to my situation, because the promotion score was not in accurate as a result of missing personnel or training data. Training data was updated upon receipt.]
"3–34. Rules for processing administrative records correction (Regular Army and US Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve)"
"Administrative records correction is a process aimed at achieving personnel and/or training database accuracy used to establish SGT and SSG promotions. Administrative records correction requests must be fully justified, signed by the promotion authority (LTC or above), and sent to commander, US army human resources command (AHRC–PDV–PE), 1600 Spearhead Division Ave., department 472, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5407, or email [login to see] for approval. All supporting documentation specific to the request must be in Cleveland or the request will be returned without action. Requests due to system errors will be approved if the system error can be substantiated. Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the administrative records correction process if he or she would have made the DA promotion point cut off score, but was in a suspension of favorable personnel action status and he or she was exonerated, the case was closed favorably, or removed as erroneously flagged/submitted, provided this soldier was otherwise qualified in accordance with paragraph 1–10. Failure on behalf of the soldier, unit, BN HR or HR specialist to update a soldier's record (that is, APFT, weapons qualification, military or civilian education, awards), integrate a soldier onto the promotion recommendation list timely, or failure to remove a flag is not grounds for reconsideration under the administrative records correction process. If the BN HR or HR specialist has problems with updating a soldiers promotion record, immediately contact HRC at the above email for assistance."
[Either way, before I was erroneously removed, after the erroneous clerical error was caught, and update performed, I would have made points. This was not a failure, on anyone's part, to update in a timely manner. This was simply an erroneous clerical error, that resulted in my non-promotion.]
I was told today, by phone, that if HRC could not do anything about it, I could request an army records review board. Should I attempt? I want to stay in. I love my job, and would love nothing more than to continue my military service. Performance wise, I have been recognized for my work, accountability, and professionalism. My only issues in 13 consecutive years of service (national guard time included) have been physical fitness, and most recently, since I am on a permanent profile, body composition.
Points submitted 30 November at 512, due to upcoming adjustments to prepare for new promotion points systems due to start in January. October's PT test results finally hit 1 December, but a Miscalculation of PT score (no factor of 3rd score calculated) flagged the system as a failing grade (removed from eligibility).
Upon discovery, Dec 2nd, set up a time to do an update with S-1; "Unfortunately" changes had already taken effect, so points could not be resubmitted, even though the record was corrected to put me back on recommendation list. Under old promotion system, update (which settled 4 Dec) would have shown 531 points. Primary zone points came out at 505.
After consultation with HRC by email, I was referred to AR 600–8–19. This is what I discovered.
AR 600-8-19 says:
"3-30 Rules for reinstating soldiers to recommended list" (in order to've be reinstated, you have to be removed, right? I was, by a clerical error, so... Sub para "a" doesn't apply, as I haven't been promoted yet, much less, in error)
"b. A Soldier removed from a list and later exonerated of the basis that caused the removal will be reinstated. To be exonerated, the action that caused the initial removal must've been erroneous or should not have been imposed so that the soldier is free of any wrongdoing."
"c. If the soldier was eligible for promotion prior to reinstatement, the DORand effective date of promotion will be the date of original eligibility."
Furthermore, I was directed to review paragraph 3–31, subparagraph "f" and paragraph 3–34, and it's entirety.
"3–31. Rules for Headquarters, Department of the Army promotion point cutoff scores (Regular Army and United States Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve only)"
"F. No soldier will be promoted as an administrative records correction when a determination is made that their automated promotion score is in accurate as a result of missing personnel or training data. Immediate action must be taken to update the supporting personnel and training databases to capture accurate information so updated automated promotion scores can be utilized to determine the following month's established cutoff scores. For USAR AGR, failure to input promotion points into AGRMIS database will not be sufficient basis for an administrative records correction for promotion."
[This paragraph does not appear to apply to my situation, because the promotion score was not in accurate as a result of missing personnel or training data. Training data was updated upon receipt.]
"3–34. Rules for processing administrative records correction (Regular Army and US Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve)"
"Administrative records correction is a process aimed at achieving personnel and/or training database accuracy used to establish SGT and SSG promotions. Administrative records correction requests must be fully justified, signed by the promotion authority (LTC or above), and sent to commander, US army human resources command (AHRC–PDV–PE), 1600 Spearhead Division Ave., department 472, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5407, or email [login to see] for approval. All supporting documentation specific to the request must be in Cleveland or the request will be returned without action. Requests due to system errors will be approved if the system error can be substantiated. Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the administrative records correction process if he or she would have made the DA promotion point cut off score, but was in a suspension of favorable personnel action status and he or she was exonerated, the case was closed favorably, or removed as erroneously flagged/submitted, provided this soldier was otherwise qualified in accordance with paragraph 1–10. Failure on behalf of the soldier, unit, BN HR or HR specialist to update a soldier's record (that is, APFT, weapons qualification, military or civilian education, awards), integrate a soldier onto the promotion recommendation list timely, or failure to remove a flag is not grounds for reconsideration under the administrative records correction process. If the BN HR or HR specialist has problems with updating a soldiers promotion record, immediately contact HRC at the above email for assistance."
[Either way, before I was erroneously removed, after the erroneous clerical error was caught, and update performed, I would have made points. This was not a failure, on anyone's part, to update in a timely manner. This was simply an erroneous clerical error, that resulted in my non-promotion.]
I was told today, by phone, that if HRC could not do anything about it, I could request an army records review board. Should I attempt? I want to stay in. I love my job, and would love nothing more than to continue my military service. Performance wise, I have been recognized for my work, accountability, and professionalism. My only issues in 13 consecutive years of service (national guard time included) have been physical fitness, and most recently, since I am on a permanent profile, body composition.
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
91B: Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
Promotions 91B: Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
Something like this happened to me in Korea... Short story my 1SG asked if I had a copy of the promotion list where my named appeared indicating that I supposed to be promoted and that was pretty much what I needed. Now I don't know how the Army have changed since then.
(2)
(0)
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz
He is doing great... Still in the NG... We communicate very often.... You two are my only brother-in-arms still in the service.
(1)
(0)
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz
I don't know if you remember he was the best man in my wedding and left us an easter egg on wedding pictures... Lol.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Exact same thing happened to me they gave me a zero for my run score…
HRC will not back data promotion…
HRC will not back data promotion…
(1)
(0)
SPC Matthew Birkinbine
Thanks for that information, SSG James Elmore . I'm hearing that this is the case, but it seems like that practice may be out of line with guidance in this regulation. With my ETS coming quickly, I don't have time to play with it to get more points, so I'm trying to fight it.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SPC Matthew Birkinbine - I'd your etsing is coming up, less than 365 days, you may not be promoted since you don't have enough time left on your contract.
(2)
(0)
SSG James Elmore
SPC Matthew Birkinbine - HRC actually put out a policy letter saying they will not backdate promotions, I wish I could remember what I did with the link that takes you to it.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
It appears as though the original error was due to miscalculation of your APFT, which is considered a personal error. HRC will not back date in that situation. Also, I hope I’m reading this correctly, if points was submitted in 30 November, which cutoff are you referring too because it wouldn’t be effective until cutoff for 1 January. SPC Matthew Birkinbine
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
""F. No soldier will be promoted as an administrative records correction when a determination is made that their automated promotion score is in accurate as a result of missing personnel or training data. Immediate action must be taken to update the supporting personnel and training databases to capture accurate information so updated automated promotion scores can be utilized to determine the following month's established cutoff scores. For USAR AGR, failure to input promotion points into AGRMIS database will not be sufficient basis for an administrative records correction for promotion."
I can see how this may be used to defend HRC's decision, agree of not... They may be stating that there was data missing... no not the entire PT test, but the third event score was in fact missing from the report as you stated.
The "Fail Flag" was erroneous, but that seems to be only be applicable if the missing data issue is not relevant. And like it or not,,, your recorded PT score had missing data.
Crappy? Yes.. Do I agree with that position? No as it seems to have been an error that was not only without fault of the SM, it would seem the SM had no duty to have prevented it (like say when an SM is supposed to review a doc, DA photo, ect before submission)
What to do? Its going to take horse power (Div or higher commander, CSM, G1) to take HR to task....
If your local command is behind you on this, keep pushing. If your local command has suggested its a done deal and not behind you fighting it.. you have a big choice to make. Tilt at windmills because its a cause you believe in.. or keep your head up knowing what right is, but except attempt change at your level is not going to happen... Then work at making (getting those in leadership position) to suggest changes to the HRC procedures so others in the future do not hit the same brick wall for an error that was not there's.
Hardly ever does a congressional inquiry result in a action the SM desired... However if your local command is behind you....and your documentation, time line and other mitigating evidence has been peer reviewed and they 100% agree with your position... This may be a case where it is fruitful
I can see how this may be used to defend HRC's decision, agree of not... They may be stating that there was data missing... no not the entire PT test, but the third event score was in fact missing from the report as you stated.
The "Fail Flag" was erroneous, but that seems to be only be applicable if the missing data issue is not relevant. And like it or not,,, your recorded PT score had missing data.
Crappy? Yes.. Do I agree with that position? No as it seems to have been an error that was not only without fault of the SM, it would seem the SM had no duty to have prevented it (like say when an SM is supposed to review a doc, DA photo, ect before submission)
What to do? Its going to take horse power (Div or higher commander, CSM, G1) to take HR to task....
If your local command is behind you on this, keep pushing. If your local command has suggested its a done deal and not behind you fighting it.. you have a big choice to make. Tilt at windmills because its a cause you believe in.. or keep your head up knowing what right is, but except attempt change at your level is not going to happen... Then work at making (getting those in leadership position) to suggest changes to the HRC procedures so others in the future do not hit the same brick wall for an error that was not there's.
Hardly ever does a congressional inquiry result in a action the SM desired... However if your local command is behind you....and your documentation, time line and other mitigating evidence has been peer reviewed and they 100% agree with your position... This may be a case where it is fruitful
(3)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
@SPC Matthew Birkinbine - I don't claim to be an expert in G1 actions, nor even knowledgeable in how Guard and Reserve personnel actions happen.
BUT, I'm sure we have the expertise on this site.. So what say you G1 folks....active duty or very current if retired...>Step up and review @SPC Matthew Birkinbine position, facts, supporting information.. Give him the unbiased peer review he needs to make a informed, adult, professional decision of let it drop or fight on... Please send him a PM offering help,,,so he can send you what he has. SPC Birkinbine may I suggest you put together a complete packet for review..
Opening position statements, TOC, indexed supporting documents, relevant regulation sites as appendices. Digitize it and save to a flat un editable PDF.
Have that file peer reviewed, Adobe PDF reader allows the review to put digital notes on the doc pages exactly where the concern or issue is found.
You can then update the file as needed. Keep a copy of each iteration as it changes, as its not unknown for reviewers to disagree or see something another did not. And a point changed, may be later found to have been correct. If you keep a clean copy of each version, its a simple copy and paste to reinsert the formerly delated text.
Approach this as one might for a collage level masters paper. Spelling, punctuation, grammar, organization, clarity of thought expressed and the way the supporting file flows (reads) is as important as the data within. You want the eventual reader to read willingly, not struggle with the format and "how" but to READ the what..., agree with your position and feel they have a concise, correct position to support. The easier you make it for them, the more likely they are to read it at all, never mind put some time or thought in to championing your cause.
BUT, I'm sure we have the expertise on this site.. So what say you G1 folks....active duty or very current if retired...>Step up and review @SPC Matthew Birkinbine position, facts, supporting information.. Give him the unbiased peer review he needs to make a informed, adult, professional decision of let it drop or fight on... Please send him a PM offering help,,,so he can send you what he has. SPC Birkinbine may I suggest you put together a complete packet for review..
Opening position statements, TOC, indexed supporting documents, relevant regulation sites as appendices. Digitize it and save to a flat un editable PDF.
Have that file peer reviewed, Adobe PDF reader allows the review to put digital notes on the doc pages exactly where the concern or issue is found.
You can then update the file as needed. Keep a copy of each iteration as it changes, as its not unknown for reviewers to disagree or see something another did not. And a point changed, may be later found to have been correct. If you keep a clean copy of each version, its a simple copy and paste to reinsert the formerly delated text.
Approach this as one might for a collage level masters paper. Spelling, punctuation, grammar, organization, clarity of thought expressed and the way the supporting file flows (reads) is as important as the data within. You want the eventual reader to read willingly, not struggle with the format and "how" but to READ the what..., agree with your position and feel they have a concise, correct position to support. The easier you make it for them, the more likely they are to read it at all, never mind put some time or thought in to championing your cause.
(1)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
SGM Erik Marquez
This is not my issue, it is SPC Matthew Birkinbine issue, I was merely trying to get some people who would be better suited to help him out! Thank you for assisting this Soldier!
This is not my issue, it is SPC Matthew Birkinbine issue, I was merely trying to get some people who would be better suited to help him out! Thank you for assisting this Soldier!
(2)
(0)
SPC Matthew Birkinbine
Gentlemen, I appreciate your attention to this. SPC(P) Jay Heenan , for calling on SME's, and SGM Erik Marquez , for your professional and personal input. I followed up with my company commander today on the issue and his words sounded a lot like yours. I appreciate that. I will press on, my next step is to approach the promotion authority, and gauge where his position is on this, to determine my next course of action.
(1)
(0)
SPC Matthew Birkinbine
Also, I haven't lost hope. I am still working on any area that I can affect or have a change on.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The following paragraph was referenced, but to my knowledge, none of these situations exist. The only situation remotely possible is sub para a.-(3)-(d). Which states lack of qualifying APFT, but an APFT is good for a 365 days, by regulation. The only issue at play here is the amount of time it took for my last APFT to be factored in (Taken in October, posted in November/1Dec).
1–10. Nonpromotable status
a. Soldiers (SPC through master sergeant (MSG)) are nonpromotable to a higher rank when one of the following
conditions exists:
(1) Has not completed the required NCOES course for the higher rank (see para 1–28). Soldiers promoted per the
provisions of paragraphs 1–18, 1–19, 1–20, 3–5d, 3–5e, and 8–3 are not required to complete NCOES to qualify for
promotion.
(2) Within 12 months following a court-martial conviction.
(3) A Soldier is ineligible to reenlist for the following reasons:
(a) Absent without leave (AWOL).
(b) Pending or has an approved administrative separation.
(c) Pending security clearance eligibility determination when it is required for the Soldier’s primary military
occupational specialty (PMOS). Soldiers will regain promotable status the day they receive the appropriate level of
security clearance eligibility approved by the DOD Consolidated Adjudication Facility (CAF). Soldiers who lose their
required security clearance eligibility as a result of a denial or revocation determination made by the DOD CAF (and
fail to regain eligibility if they have exercised their right to an appeal with the Army Personnel Security Appeals
Board), will be removed from the recommended list.
(d) Lack of a qualifying Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) (not applicable to Soldiers affected by paras 1–18,
1–19, 1–20, and 1–22).
(e) Approved retirement.
(f) Field bar to reenlistment.
(g) Subject to denial of continued service by the Qualitative Management Program.
(h) Selected for denial of continued service by the Qualitative Service Program and/or Qualitative Retention
Program.
(i) Has an approved declination of continued service statement (DCSS).
(j) Does not meet regulatory weight standards.
(4) A written recommendation has been sent to the promotion authority to reclassify a Soldier for inefficiency or
disciplinary reasons.
(5) A Soldier fails to reenlist or extend their current enlistment to meet the service remaining requirement within 30
days (RA) and 60 days (USAR) of the announced promotion effective date. The promotion authority will remove the
names from the recommended list.
(6) A Soldier was punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 15, including suspended
punishment. Summarized proceedings imposed according to AR 27–10 are excluded and will not result in non-
promotable status. The Soldier regains promotion eligibility on the day of completion of the period of correctional
custody, suspension, restriction, extra duty, and/or suspended forfeiture of pay, whichever occurs later. For the
purposes of determining nonpromotable status, periods of forfeiture of pay will be determined as follows:
(a) Periods of forfeiture are to begin on the date that UCMJ, Article 15, punishment is imposed.
(b) For UCMJ, Article 15, forfeitures imposed by company grade CDRs, 7 calendar days is the period of forfeiture.
For example, punishment is imposed on 28 March 2005. The Soldier is in a nonpromotable status from 28 March
through 3 April and regains promotable status on 4 April.
(c) For UCMJ, Article 15, forfeitures of 1 month by field grade CDRs, 15 calendar days is the period of forfeiture.
(d) For UCMJ, Article 15, forfeitures of 2 months imposed by field grade CDRs, 45 calendar days is the period of
forfeiture.
(7) A Soldier is denied favorable personnel actions under the provisions of AR 600–8–2.
(a) Failure to initiate DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) does not affect the
Soldier’s nonpromotable status if a circumstance exists that requires imposition of a suspension of favorable personnel
actions (Flag) under the provisions of AR 600–8–2.
(b) The promotion status of a Soldier residing on a centralized selection list with an imposed Flag is controlled by
paragraph 1–11.
(8) When a Soldier is command-referred and enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), the Soldier
becomes nonpromotable. Self-referred Soldiers are eligible for promotion while enrolled in ASAP, provided otherwise
qualified in accordance with the other provisions of this paragraph. A self-referral who is later command-referred to
ASAP based on evidence not protected by the limited-use policy becomes nonpromotable upon command referral to
ASAP.
(9) A Soldier has a qualifying conviction for domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Amendment to the
Gun Control Act of 1968, the Lautenberg Amendment (Title 18, United States Code, Section 922 (18 USC 922)), in
accordance with AR 600–20.
(10) A Soldier failed, due to his or her own fault as determined by the CDR, to complete scheduled training
associated with reclassification to a new military occupational specialty (MOS) and has been awarded additional skill
identifier (ASI) 4B as determined by HRC, General Officer Command (GOCOM), major subordinate command (MSC),
and/or direct reporting unit (DRU) (for USAR TPU Soldiers) or National Guard Bureau (NGB) (for ARNG Soldiers).
This provision applies to Soldiers who cannot attain approved PMOS qualifications (for example, the DOD CAF has
determined that the Soldier is ineligible for a security clearance, the Soldier exercised their appeal rights, and the
Personnel Security Appeals Board affirmed the DOD CAF determination). The basic combat training (BCT) and/or
BDE S1 will track the status of all Soldiers with ASI 4A (promotion eligible) and, when a determination is made that a
Soldier failed to attend or to complete training as scheduled, take action to award ASI 4B (ineligible for promotion).
(11) A USAR unit Soldier declines promotion and reassignment to a unit position that is within a reasonable
commuting distance (as defined in AR 140–10) or elected mileage. The Soldier, after removal from the recommended
list, is nonpromotable for 1 year.
(12) Is a Reserve Component (RC) Soldier scheduled for mandatory removal because of age, years of service, or
nonselection for retention by a qualitative retention board.
b. Because HRC and regional support commands (RSCs) administer promotions to ranks SFC through sergeant
major (SGM), colonel (COL)-level CDRs are responsible for notifying HRC (AHRC–PDV–PE), or RSCs, when
Soldiers in those ranks whose names appear on a recommended list become nonpromotable. When a Soldier has been
flagged under the provisions of AR 600–8–2, COL-level CDRs must forward documentation, to include the initial DA
Form 268, explaining the reason for the flagging action. When the flagging action is closed, COL-level CDRs must
forward a copy of the final DA Form 268, the date the Flag is closed, type of punishment received, date all punishment
is completed (including all periods of suspension), and/or date that a memorandum of reprimand was approved for
filing. This information (including locally-filed memorandum/letters) will be used to determine the Soldier’s eligibility
to remain on a centralized selection list by means of the procedures in chapter 4. For all other cases, the HR specialist
will provide the Soldier’s name and a brief summary of circumstances that caused the Soldier to become non-
pro motable. All correspondence will be mailed to Co m mander, U.S. Ar my Hu man Resources Co m mand
(AHRC–PDV–PE), 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5407, or to the RSC, and will include the
Soldier’s sequence number, promotion MOS, and the date the Soldier became nonpromotable.
c. For nonpromotable status of ARNG Soldiers, refer also to paragraph 7–4.
1–10. Nonpromotable status
a. Soldiers (SPC through master sergeant (MSG)) are nonpromotable to a higher rank when one of the following
conditions exists:
(1) Has not completed the required NCOES course for the higher rank (see para 1–28). Soldiers promoted per the
provisions of paragraphs 1–18, 1–19, 1–20, 3–5d, 3–5e, and 8–3 are not required to complete NCOES to qualify for
promotion.
(2) Within 12 months following a court-martial conviction.
(3) A Soldier is ineligible to reenlist for the following reasons:
(a) Absent without leave (AWOL).
(b) Pending or has an approved administrative separation.
(c) Pending security clearance eligibility determination when it is required for the Soldier’s primary military
occupational specialty (PMOS). Soldiers will regain promotable status the day they receive the appropriate level of
security clearance eligibility approved by the DOD Consolidated Adjudication Facility (CAF). Soldiers who lose their
required security clearance eligibility as a result of a denial or revocation determination made by the DOD CAF (and
fail to regain eligibility if they have exercised their right to an appeal with the Army Personnel Security Appeals
Board), will be removed from the recommended list.
(d) Lack of a qualifying Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) (not applicable to Soldiers affected by paras 1–18,
1–19, 1–20, and 1–22).
(e) Approved retirement.
(f) Field bar to reenlistment.
(g) Subject to denial of continued service by the Qualitative Management Program.
(h) Selected for denial of continued service by the Qualitative Service Program and/or Qualitative Retention
Program.
(i) Has an approved declination of continued service statement (DCSS).
(j) Does not meet regulatory weight standards.
(4) A written recommendation has been sent to the promotion authority to reclassify a Soldier for inefficiency or
disciplinary reasons.
(5) A Soldier fails to reenlist or extend their current enlistment to meet the service remaining requirement within 30
days (RA) and 60 days (USAR) of the announced promotion effective date. The promotion authority will remove the
names from the recommended list.
(6) A Soldier was punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 15, including suspended
punishment. Summarized proceedings imposed according to AR 27–10 are excluded and will not result in non-
promotable status. The Soldier regains promotion eligibility on the day of completion of the period of correctional
custody, suspension, restriction, extra duty, and/or suspended forfeiture of pay, whichever occurs later. For the
purposes of determining nonpromotable status, periods of forfeiture of pay will be determined as follows:
(a) Periods of forfeiture are to begin on the date that UCMJ, Article 15, punishment is imposed.
(b) For UCMJ, Article 15, forfeitures imposed by company grade CDRs, 7 calendar days is the period of forfeiture.
For example, punishment is imposed on 28 March 2005. The Soldier is in a nonpromotable status from 28 March
through 3 April and regains promotable status on 4 April.
(c) For UCMJ, Article 15, forfeitures of 1 month by field grade CDRs, 15 calendar days is the period of forfeiture.
(d) For UCMJ, Article 15, forfeitures of 2 months imposed by field grade CDRs, 45 calendar days is the period of
forfeiture.
(7) A Soldier is denied favorable personnel actions under the provisions of AR 600–8–2.
(a) Failure to initiate DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) does not affect the
Soldier’s nonpromotable status if a circumstance exists that requires imposition of a suspension of favorable personnel
actions (Flag) under the provisions of AR 600–8–2.
(b) The promotion status of a Soldier residing on a centralized selection list with an imposed Flag is controlled by
paragraph 1–11.
(8) When a Soldier is command-referred and enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), the Soldier
becomes nonpromotable. Self-referred Soldiers are eligible for promotion while enrolled in ASAP, provided otherwise
qualified in accordance with the other provisions of this paragraph. A self-referral who is later command-referred to
ASAP based on evidence not protected by the limited-use policy becomes nonpromotable upon command referral to
ASAP.
(9) A Soldier has a qualifying conviction for domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Amendment to the
Gun Control Act of 1968, the Lautenberg Amendment (Title 18, United States Code, Section 922 (18 USC 922)), in
accordance with AR 600–20.
(10) A Soldier failed, due to his or her own fault as determined by the CDR, to complete scheduled training
associated with reclassification to a new military occupational specialty (MOS) and has been awarded additional skill
identifier (ASI) 4B as determined by HRC, General Officer Command (GOCOM), major subordinate command (MSC),
and/or direct reporting unit (DRU) (for USAR TPU Soldiers) or National Guard Bureau (NGB) (for ARNG Soldiers).
This provision applies to Soldiers who cannot attain approved PMOS qualifications (for example, the DOD CAF has
determined that the Soldier is ineligible for a security clearance, the Soldier exercised their appeal rights, and the
Personnel Security Appeals Board affirmed the DOD CAF determination). The basic combat training (BCT) and/or
BDE S1 will track the status of all Soldiers with ASI 4A (promotion eligible) and, when a determination is made that a
Soldier failed to attend or to complete training as scheduled, take action to award ASI 4B (ineligible for promotion).
(11) A USAR unit Soldier declines promotion and reassignment to a unit position that is within a reasonable
commuting distance (as defined in AR 140–10) or elected mileage. The Soldier, after removal from the recommended
list, is nonpromotable for 1 year.
(12) Is a Reserve Component (RC) Soldier scheduled for mandatory removal because of age, years of service, or
nonselection for retention by a qualitative retention board.
b. Because HRC and regional support commands (RSCs) administer promotions to ranks SFC through sergeant
major (SGM), colonel (COL)-level CDRs are responsible for notifying HRC (AHRC–PDV–PE), or RSCs, when
Soldiers in those ranks whose names appear on a recommended list become nonpromotable. When a Soldier has been
flagged under the provisions of AR 600–8–2, COL-level CDRs must forward documentation, to include the initial DA
Form 268, explaining the reason for the flagging action. When the flagging action is closed, COL-level CDRs must
forward a copy of the final DA Form 268, the date the Flag is closed, type of punishment received, date all punishment
is completed (including all periods of suspension), and/or date that a memorandum of reprimand was approved for
filing. This information (including locally-filed memorandum/letters) will be used to determine the Soldier’s eligibility
to remain on a centralized selection list by means of the procedures in chapter 4. For all other cases, the HR specialist
will provide the Soldier’s name and a brief summary of circumstances that caused the Soldier to become non-
pro motable. All correspondence will be mailed to Co m mander, U.S. Ar my Hu man Resources Co m mand
(AHRC–PDV–PE), 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5407, or to the RSC, and will include the
Soldier’s sequence number, promotion MOS, and the date the Soldier became nonpromotable.
c. For nonpromotable status of ARNG Soldiers, refer also to paragraph 7–4.
(0)
(0)
SPC Matthew Birkinbine
Furthermore, if a.(7)-(a) were an issue, even if a FLAG were initiated (which it wasn't because I caught it within a day), it was a clerical error that was erroneous, so the FLAG would have been erroneous.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google