This will get lost in the other thread where it came up recently. It's worth bringing up as many people haven't reviewed the Guide to Advancement and misunderstand the power of a board of review.

The advancement rules enable overruling and saying no and overruling and saying yes.

Real world I would hope denial never needs to happen. if you see a Scout isn't doing X, have the discussion early. Think of the BoR as the last chance to stop advancement and the Scout had opportunities to improve.

But the BoR has the ultimate power on advancement and must not just advance everyone because the SM and ASMs said they're good. It's a forms of checks and balances.

Would you want to just advance a Scout where you found out an Assistant Scoutmaster signed off doing their position of responsibility but they absolutely never did it? What about where they were credited for service hours and all they did was sit in a chair the whole time? I would hope it wouldn't happen, but I can absolutely see an untrustworthy Scout having a friend sign them in for a merit badge (at camp or some event) and they didn't actually earn it.

If the BoR learns of any of this this happening they absolutely can and should deny advancement.

Guess what, the SM isn't the person catching these problems. The Scoutmaster Conferenced doesn't even need to be at the end right before a BoR, you can do it halfway through the six months. If you hold an annual review for all Scouts the Scout can claim that as the requirement being done.

The SMC doesn't even need to be by the Scoutmaster. Let's say the SM is out for a month on medical leave. The Committee can't deny them a BoR until after the actual Scoutmaster gets back.

You can also see the option where a Scout can disagree on a Position of Responsibility not being completed and get a BoR to agree. There's that whole process.

Then beyond that, for Star to Eagle the board also has to weigh if the Scout is active with three tests. The BoR explicitly has the final say on what "Be active in your troop for at least four months as a First Class Scout." means, not the Scoutmaster or ASMs. If you read below you'll see more guidance on test three.

For "active" The Scout must

1. be registered
2. be in good standing
3. meet unit expectations for active participation.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

8.0.0.1

"After a Scout has completed the requirements for any rank (except Scout rank), he or she appears before a board of review. A board of review must be a personal and individual experience. Its purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. If so, the board not only approves the Scout’s advancement but also provides encouragement to continue the quest for the next rank"

"Any advancement errors discovered after a board of review must not be held against a Scout in considering any future advancement, even if requirements were not properly completed."

8.0.0.2

"In a case where there is concern that the requirements for a rank as written have not been fulfilled, it is appropriate to advise the Scout that he or she might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what might be done to improve the chances for success. It is, however, the Scout’s decision to go ahead with a board of review or not."

8.0.1.1

Though one reason for a board of review is to help ensure the Scout did what was supposed to have been done to meet the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or “examination,” nor a challenge of the Scout’s knowledge.

8.0.0.3

"Unit leaders and assistants shall not serve on a board of review for a Scout in their own unit. Parents, guardians, or relatives shall not serve on a board for their child. The candidate or the candidate’s parent(s) or guardian(s), or relative(s) shall have no part in selecting any board of review members"

8.0.0.2

A Scout shall not be denied this opportunity. When a Scout believes that all the requirements for a rank have been completed, including a Scoutmaster conference, a board of review must be granted.

4.2.3.0

The concepts of “reasonable” and “within reason” will help unit leadership and boards of review gauge the fairness of expectations for considering whether a Scout is “active” or has fulfilledpositions of responsibility. A unit is allowed, of course, to establish expectations acceptable to its chartered organization and unit committee. But for advancement purposes, Scouts must not be held to those which are so demanding as to be impractical for today’s youth (and families) to achieve.

Ultimately, a board of review shall decide what is reasonable and what is not. In doing so, the board members must use common sense and must take into account that youth should be allowed to balance their lives with positive activities outside of Scouting.

4.2.3.1

It is reasonable to accept that competition for a Scout’s time will become intense, especially as the Scout grows older and wants to take advantage of positive “outside” opportunities. This can make full-time dedication to the unit difficult to balance. A fair leader, therefore, will seek ways to empower the Scout to plan personal growth opportunities both inside and outside Scouting, and consider them part of the overall positive life experience for which the Boy Scouts of America is a driving force.

A board of review can accept an explanation if it can be reasonably sure there have been sufficient influences in the Scout’s life that the Scout is meeting our aims. The board members must satisfy themselves that the Scout is the sort of person who, based on present behavior, will contribute to the Boy Scouts of America’s mission. Consequently, the board can grant the rank regardless of the Scout’s current or most recent level of activity in Scouting. Note that it may be more difficult, though not impossible, for a younger member to pass through the third-test alternative than for one more experienced in our lessons.

Third test referenced:

The Scout meets the unit’s reasonable expectations; or, if not, a lesser level of activity is explained. If, for the time period required, a Scout or qualifying Venturer or Sea Scout meets those aspects of the unit’s pre- established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then he or she is considered active and the requirement is met. Time counted as “active” need not be consecutive. Scouts may piece together any times they have been active and still qualify. If a Scout does not meet the unit’s reasonable expectations, the alternative that follows must be offered.

4.2.3.4.5

If a Scout believes the duties of the position [of responsibility] have been performed satisfactorily but the unit leader disagrees, then the possibility that expectations are unreasonable or were not clearly conveyed to the youth should be considered. If after discussions between the Scout and the unit leader— and perhaps the parents or guardians—the Scout believes the expectations are unreasonable, then upon completing the remaining requirements, the Scout must be granted a board of review.

4.2.3.5

The unit leader (Scoutmaster) conference, regardless of the rank or program, is conducted according to the guidelines in the Troop Leader Guidebook… Note that a Scout must participate or take part in one; it is not a “test.” Requirements do not say the Scout must “pass” a conference. While it makes sense to hold one after other requirements for a rank are met, it is not required that it be the last step before the board of review.