Posted on Aug 15, 2025
Would a Soldier that was forced out at 16 years for an NCOER that was later changed be allowed to retire retroactively?
7.66K
19
8
8
8
0
The Soldier received a 4-2 rating on an NCOER and was forced out at 16 years through QMP. 9 years later the reason for the forced ETS was changed?
The ncoer changed from 4-2 rating to a 3-2 rating and the 2016 qmp milper message stated that a 4 rating would put you into QMP status. The request for a 20 year retirement is at ARBA ABCMR and the case status is "board docket".
Would the Soldier receive retirement and backpay?
The ncoer changed from 4-2 rating to a 3-2 rating and the 2016 qmp milper message stated that a 4 rating would put you into QMP status. The request for a 20 year retirement is at ARBA ABCMR and the case status is "board docket".
Would the Soldier receive retirement and backpay?
Retirement
Promotion Board
Pentagon
QMP
8999: Sergeant Major/First Sergeant
Edited 6 mo ago
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 2
Is it possible? Yes. The ABCMR has granted constructive credit to individuals before that enabled them to be eligible for a retirement.
I assume the NCOER was changed through either an appeal or other mechanism.
IF the only reason for the QMP referral was a "fair" (4) rating by the senior rater AND the ABCMR finds that that in all probability the Soldier would have continued until 20 years, then it is probable that relief would be granted.
HOWEVER, why did the senior rater give a 'fair' rating? Were there any other indications on the NCOER of substandard performance? Were there any other 'dings' in the personnel file? Etc.
The ABCMR will have access to everything (include the restricted portion) of the personnel record and will "walk the dog" through the rest of the potential time in service to see if the NCO would likely have made it to 20 years.
I assume the NCOER was changed through either an appeal or other mechanism.
IF the only reason for the QMP referral was a "fair" (4) rating by the senior rater AND the ABCMR finds that that in all probability the Soldier would have continued until 20 years, then it is probable that relief would be granted.
HOWEVER, why did the senior rater give a 'fair' rating? Were there any other indications on the NCOER of substandard performance? Were there any other 'dings' in the personnel file? Etc.
The ABCMR will have access to everything (include the restricted portion) of the personnel record and will "walk the dog" through the rest of the potential time in service to see if the NCO would likely have made it to 20 years.
(5)
(0)
SSG Eric Blue
Sir, what about a similar situation of being forced out at 16, making the promotion list for the next rank, and not being promoted locally because of being told to re-enlist to get promoted and ALSO to get promoted to be able to re-enlist? Do you have any advice for that? I would greatly appreciate it if you did.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
SSG Eric Blue - I'm not tracking completely. Are you saying the Soldier in this situation is in a catch-22 (must be promoted to extend, but must extend in order to be promoted) and because of that they were forced out?
When did this occur (rules change all the time)? RCPs have been in flux as well as the rules governing promotable status. For example, back in 2016, an E-5 had a RCP of 13 years, but if was promotable, then they had a RCP of 15 years.
When did this occur (rules change all the time)? RCPs have been in flux as well as the rules governing promotable status. For example, back in 2016, an E-5 had a RCP of 13 years, but if was promotable, then they had a RCP of 15 years.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
SSG Eric Blue - Can you provide more information? What was the rank of Soldier? When in 2016 did this happen? When did they become promotable? Were they additional factors that delayed the promotion?
In 2016, there was a significant change to the RCPs, but they were phased in based on the BASD of the individual and didn't affect those below the rank of SFC. Additionally, "16 years" doesn't sit right as the RCPs that were in effect, both before and after the changes, didn't have 16 years as an RCP point (14 years* for SGT/SGT(P) and 20 years for a SSG/SSG(P) ... 16 years for a SGT/SGT(P) did come later).
My suspicion is that it wasn't a true catch-22 situation, but rather a misunderstanding of what was going on, but I'll happily look into it a bit more with more information.
-----------------------
* BTW, the "14 years" is different from my response earlier. I incorrectly said "in 2016" in my previous statement, but the 13/15 for SGT/SGT(P) was prior to early 2014.
In 2016, there was a significant change to the RCPs, but they were phased in based on the BASD of the individual and didn't affect those below the rank of SFC. Additionally, "16 years" doesn't sit right as the RCPs that were in effect, both before and after the changes, didn't have 16 years as an RCP point (14 years* for SGT/SGT(P) and 20 years for a SSG/SSG(P) ... 16 years for a SGT/SGT(P) did come later).
My suspicion is that it wasn't a true catch-22 situation, but rather a misunderstanding of what was going on, but I'll happily look into it a bit more with more information.
-----------------------
* BTW, the "14 years" is different from my response earlier. I incorrectly said "in 2016" in my previous statement, but the 13/15 for SGT/SGT(P) was prior to early 2014.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Good afternoon SSG (Join to see). Excellent post. Thank you for sharing this brother Timothy. I think that individual should.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google