APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his date of rank for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 to reflect 1 January 1995 instead of 1 March 1995. APPLICANT STATES: That his promotion to the pay grade of E-5 was unjustly delayed because he was unable to attend the primary leadership development course (PLDC) any earlier than he did because of mission requirements requiring him to deploy to West Point and Haiti in support of military operations. He further states that he met the cut-off score for promotion to E-5 on 1 January 1995 but could not be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 until he completed PLDC on 14 March 1995. He goes on to state that he attended the first class available and believes he should have been promoted on 1 January 1995. In support of his application he submits a memorandum from his commander supporting his efforts to have his date of rank backdated. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant enlisted on 8 July 1992 for a period of 4 years and training as legal specialist (71D). The applicant met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71D on 1 January 1995. However, because he had not attended the PLDC or requested a waiver of the PLDC requirement, he was not promoted until he completed the course. There is no indication in the available records to show when the applicant attained list status or if he ever requested attendance at the PLDC any sooner than scheduled. He attended the PLDC from 13 February 1995 through 14 March 1995 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 14 March 1995. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). It opined, in effect, that in the absence of a properly approved waiver of the PLDC requirement, the applicant had been properly promoted to the pay grade of E-5 after completion of the PLDC. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied. The supporting statement from the applicant’s commander indicates that the applicant was deployed to West Point from 31 May to 10 August 1994 (72 days) in support of Operation Black Knight and to Haiti from 25 September to 30 October 1994 (35 days). The commander indicated that the applicant could not attend PLDC due to his deployments and should be granted retroactive promotion consideration. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing the promotion of Army enlisted personnel. It states, in pertinent part, that linkage of NCOES to promotions ensures that NCO’s are provided the appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes before they assume the duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade. This linkage also aligns the NCO professional/leader development system with the Army philosophy of “Train, Promote, and Utilize.” Effective 1 October 1989, soldiers were required to be graduates of PLDC in order to be promoted to the pay grade of E-5. Soldiers who met a cut-off score on or after 1 October 1989, but were not PLDC graduates, provided otherwise eligible, would be promoted on the first day of the month following graduation. However, under current policy, soldiers will be promoted on the day of successful completion of PLDC. Exceptions to this policy (Requirement to complete PLDC prior to promotion) may be requested from the PERSCOM. Exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis when the soldier is fully qualified to attend training and no PLDC vacancies exists or mission requirements prevent the individual from attending. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. The applicant was properly promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 14 March 1995, upon successful completion of the PLDC. 2. Although the applicant has not indicated, nor do his records indicate when he originally attained list standing for promotion to the pay grade of E-5, it appears to the Board that neither the applicant, nor his command, took any steps to get a quota for him to attend PLDC until he met the cut-off score for promotion. Not only could he have requested a waiver of the PLDC requirement in the event that he met the cut-off score while deployed, he very possibly could have requested attendance at an earlier date. In any event, the applicant has failed to convince the Board that his deployments for a three month period seriously hampered his ability to attend the PLDC. 3. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that an error or injustice exists in his case. The applicant was aware of the requirement to complete PLDC prior to promotion, and there is no evidence to suggest that he would have attended PLDC any earlier than scheduled or that he could have anticipated meeting the cut-off score and would have submitted an application for an exception to policy. Therefore, to grant the applicant’s requests would afford him a benefit not given to others in similar situations. 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