Investigation: Fort Carson soldiers rightly pulled from promotion list

An investigation into sergeant and staff sergeant promotions at Fort Carson, Colorado, earlier this year has found that three soldiers in all had their promotions rescinded.

There also was “insufficient evidence” to support allegations that promotions were “improperly rescinded,” the report said.

The Army Regulation 15-6, ordered by Maj. Gen. Ryan Gonsalves, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, found that two sergeants had their promotions to staff sergeant rescinded because they had not completed the appropriate level of professional military education. The third soldier had his promotion to sergeant rescinded because of a flag on his record for failure to comply with the Army's body fat regulation.

News about the rescinded promotions broke in March. At the time, officials at Fort Carson confirmed that at least two soldiers from the division’s 4th Combat Aviation Brigade were affected. Reports, including from popular military Facebook pages, indicated at the time that the same thing had happened to several more soldiers on Fort Carson.

The conflicting reports prompted the 15-6, which concluded March 21. Army Times obtained a redacted copy of the report via a Freedom of Information Act request.
The investigation, conducted by a major whose name is redacted, found three instances of rescinded promotions on Fort Carson since the Army implemented its new STEP policy.

STEP, or Select-Train-Educate-Promote, went into effect Jan. 1 for promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant. The new policy requires soldiers to have the appropriate level of professional military education before they can be promoted.

Two sergeants from the 4th Combat Aviation Brigade had their promotions rescinded because they had not completed the Advanced Leader Course, a requirement under STEP for promotion to staff sergeant. The soldiers’ names are redacted.

Both soldiers were included on the Army’s sergeant/staff sergeant by-name promotion list for advancement on Jan. 1, according to the 15-6. The list was released Dec. 22, and promotion orders were produced between Dec. 28 and 30 for both noncommissioned officers.

In the case of one NCO, a Jan. 14 memo from Human Resources Command informing 4th CAB that “an audit occurred” showed that the sergeant was not a graduate of the Advanced Leader Course, according to the 15-6 report. That same day, the 4th CAB personnel section produced orders to revoke the sergeant’s promotion, the report states.

A first sergeant from the NCO’s unit “speculates in his sworn statement” that the NCO was placed on the by-name promotion list because he had “previously completed [Structured Self-Development 3], which triggered the erroneous addition” to the by-name list, according to the report.

SSD 3 is required for consideration to promotion to sergeant first class, not staff sergeant.
The second affected NCO received his promotion orders Dec. 30, according to the report. However, the NCO’s first sergeant initiated a review of the promotion on Jan. 4 “based on her knowledge that [the sergeant] had not yet graduated from the Advanced Leader Course,” according to the report. The Jan. 14 memo from HRC also found that the NCO had not completed ALC.

The first sergeant later discovered that the NCO had a code in his records indicating that his next required school was the Senior Leader Course, which is a requirement for promotion to sergeant first class.

The error caused the NCO to be added to the by-name promotion list and explains why he had not been selected to attend the Advanced Leader Course even though he was promotable, according to the report.

Both soldiers are CH-47 Chinook helicopter repairers in separate companies in the brigade’s 2nd General Support Aviation Battalion, 4th Aviation Regiment, according to the report.

The investigating officer wrote that the “erroneous” promotions of the two sergeants were the result of incorrect information in their records and “a failure of the unit to validate their promotions,” according to the 15-6.

Since the investigation, the two NCOs “were scheduled for classes but had to withdraw for personal reasons,” said Dani Johnson, a spokeswoman for Fort Carson. “They are being rescheduled for future classes.”
The third soldier affected had his promotion rescinded because of a flag that was initiated after the promotion orders were published but prior to the effective date of the promotion, according to the 15-6.

The soldier, from 2nd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, received promotion orders on Feb. 24. The effective date of rank would have been March 1.

The specialist’s promotion order was revoked on Feb. 25 “due to a validly imposed flag for noncompliance” with the Army Body Composition Program,” according to the report. The effective date of the flag was Feb. 25.

There has been no change in status for that soldier, Johnson said.
In the report, the investigating officer also outlined four recommendations:

• Units on Fort Carson should sustain their NCO professional development training to include updates and changes to promotion and retention policies.

• Unit leaders at the company level should validate promotions of enlisted personnel on semi-centralized promotion by-name lists prior to providing promotion orders to affected soldiers in order to prevent erroneous promotions.

• Units should reiterate the proper priority for soldiers attending NCO educational schools as outlined by the Army, as the priority list is designed to eliminate the legacy backlog of soldiers who have not graduated from the proper levels of school.

• Units should conduct a full audit of all soldiers’ records. The purpose of this audit would be to identify erroneous information, especially for resident military education, that may affect proper career progression.

“All recommendations in the report have been implemented, and there have been no rescinded promotions since the investigation,” Johnson told Army Times.