2. The applicant requests an adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) from 10 January 1995 to 1 December 1994. 3. The applicant states that he deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on 1 November 1994. He met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 15 November 1994 (for 1 December 1994 promotions), but was unable to execute an extension of service until 10 January 1995, that was necessary to meet the service remaining requirement (1 year of remaining service) for promotion. Consequently, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 10 January 1995. 4. The applicant’s military records indicate that he enlisted on 7 March 1986 and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 October 1991 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 97E (Interrogator). 5. On 1 November 1994 the applicant was deployed from Fort Hood, Texas to Guantanamo Bay, in support of Joint Task Force 160. The last entry in his records indicating his continued presence in Cuba was 30 April 1995. 6. The applicant met the 1 December 1994 promotion cut-off score on 15 November 1994. However, he was 9 days short of having 1 year of service remaining upon promotion to the pay grade of E-6. In the applicant’s absence, his commander at Fort Hood approved a one month extension for the purpose of meeting the service remaining requirement for promotion. However, the applicant did not sign the request for extension until 10 January 1995. Orders were published on 22 February 1995 promoting him to the pay grade of E-6 on 10 January 1995. 7. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). It opined, in effect, that the applicant did not meet the service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 until 10 January 1995, therefore his date of rank was correct as published. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied. 8. On 27 February 1991 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel dispatched in message form, promotion exceptions to policy to Army Regulation 635-200, in support of Operation Desert Storm, It stated, in pertinent part, that effective 1 March 1991. the 12-month service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 was suspended until further notice. 9. On 1 November 1991, Army Regulation 600-8-19 superseded Army Regulation 635-200 and reinstated the 12-month service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6. CONCLUSIONS: 1. It is reasonable to presume that had the applicant not been deployed to Cuba on 1 November 1994, he would have signed his oath of extension on 15 November 1994, when his commander approved it. For reasons not known to this Board, it took until 10 January 1995 for the applicant to execute the extension of service. However, it is also reasonable to presume that the applicant was unable to execute an extension of service any earlier due to his deployment in support of the joint tasks force. 2. Although the PERSCOM is accurate in its opinion that the applicant’s date of rank is correct based on the date he was able to take steps to meet the service remaining requirements, it is apparent to the Board that the applicant has suffered an injustice, in that he was deployed to Cuba and was unable to timely execute an extension of service. It is inconceivable that the applicant would not have executed the extension of service earlier than he did had he known it was required of him. Consequently, he has been denied a financial gain that he otherwise would have been able to obtain. 3. While the Board recognizes that the applicable regulation requires soldiers to take steps to meet the service remaining requirement before they may be promoted, the Board also recognizes that there are instances where exceptions must be made (as was done in support of Operation Desert Storm) and this appears to be one of those instances. 4. Likewise, it is not equitable and just that soldiers who are deployed to overseas areas in support of military sponsored operations where limited support is available, be penalized unnecessarily for circumstances beyond their control. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to grant the applicant’s request. 5. In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to pay grade E-6 effective 1 December 1994 with a same date of rank and that he receive all appropriate pay and allowances resulting from that promotion. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON