APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In two applications, adjustment of his effective date and date of rank for promotion to the pay grade E-6 and subsequent promotion to the pay grade of E-7 to be effective on or about 26 May 1991.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time he was promoted to the pay grade of E-6, the minimum number of points required for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 was 450 points and he had over 700 points.  He goes on to state that he exceeds the requirements for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and therefore should be promoted to that grade on or about 26 May 1991, the date he met the minimum number of years of time in service required for the promotion.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 26 May 1981 and has remained in the USAR Control Group (Ready) through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 November 1984 and to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1988.

The applicant’s Reserve Command, in a memorandum to the Army Reserve Personnel Center dated 20 March 1995, indicates that additional documentation to support his contentions was requested from the applicant.  However, the applicant failed to provide the documentation necessary to support his contention that he should have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6 earlier than he was promoted or that he should have been promoted to the pay grade of E-7.  The Reserve Command indicates that there is no evidence that the applicant’s date of rank should be other than what is currently reflected in the records.

Army Regulation 140-158 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of soldiers assigned to troop program units (TPU).  It states, in pertinent part, that the promotion system is designed to provide the best qualified soldier with broad opportunities for career advancement.  The only limitations to advancement should be the availability of positions and geographical constraints.  Since promotions are based on vacancies/requirements within a geographical area, the promotion system is more effective where consolidated selection boards and recommended lists are established.
 
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  While the applicant may believe that he should have been promoted sooner than he was, he has provided no evidence with his application to support his contention.  Likewise, there is no evidence in the available records to show that his promotion to the pay grade of E-6 was unduly delayed.  Consequently, there is no basis to adjust his date of rank or effective date of promotion to the pay grade of E-6.

3.  Inasmuch as USAR promotions in a TPU are contingent on a vacancy/requirement, the applicant has failed to show that such a vacancy existed and/or that he was unjustly denied a promotion for which he was eligible to receive.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. 

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director