APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his reclassification to military occupational specialty (MOS) 250B be backdated to 30 April 1994 or earlier and that he receive promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of CW4.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he submitted a request for reclassification from MOS 250A to MOS 250B on 28 January 1994 and his request was unjustly denied by his branch manager at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  He goes on to state that his records document his qualifications for reclassification to MOS 250B and his branch manager failed to properly assess those qualifications prior to disapproving his request based on the lack of documented formal training in his records.  He further states that he resubmitted his request with documented evidence of his training and experience and it was subsequently approved on 7 October 1994.  However, the fiscal year 1994 CW4 promotion selection board adjourned on 23 June 1994 and did not select him for promotion.  He contends that had the PERSCOM properly approved his original request for reclassification, he would have been properly considered for promotion in MOS 250B instead of MOS 250A and most likely would have been selected for promotion.  In support of his application he submits copies of his second request for reclassification with supporting documentation that includes his certificates of training.

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

After serving 14 years, 11 months, and 15 days of total active service, the applicant was honorably discharged on 18 January 1983 in the pay grade of E-7, for the purpose of accepting an appointment as a warrant officer.

On 19 January 1983 he was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one (WO1) with a concurrent call to active duty.  He accepted an appointment in the Regular Army on 16 September 1987 and was promoted to the pay grade of CW3 on 1 May 1989.

On 28 January 1994 the applicant submitted a request for reclassification from MOS 250A to MOS 250B.  He indicated that he met the qualifications for reclassification; however, there is no indication on his request that he submitted any enclosures with his application or documentation to support his request.

The PERSCOM disapproved his request on 14 February 1994 based on the lack of documented formal training and experience in his records.

The applicant again submitted a request for reclassification to the PERSCOM on 9 September 1994 accompanied with documentation indicating his training and experience in the MOS he was requesting.  The PERSCOM approved his request on 11 October 1994 based on the applicant’s submission of documents indicating that he had successfully completed the Electronic Switching Technician Manager Course.

On 30 November 1994 the applicant submitted a request for promotion reconsideration to the PERSCOM contending, in effect, that his branch had made a mistake by not approving his first request for reclassification and that he was not properly afforded the opportunity to be considered for promotion to the pay grade of CW4 in MOS 250B and was thus nonselected.  The PERSCOM denied his request on 16 February 1995 contending that he was properly considered for promotion in the MOS he held at the time the promotion board convened and therefore no material error existed that warranted reconsideration. 

A review of the applicant’s official records failed to reveal any evidence that he had formally attended the training that ultimately served as the basis for approval of his request. 

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained (COPY ATTACHED) from the warrant officer division of the PERSCOM.  It opined that the applicant’s first request for reclassification was disapproved due to the lack of documented training and experience.  However, his second request contained the documentation to support his request and was approved, accordingly.  The PERSCOM recommended that his request be disapproved.

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 must shoulder the responsibility for not submitting the proper documentation to support his request. Accordingly, his contention that his first request for reclassification was unjustly disapproved and that his nonselection for promotion to the pay grade of CW4 was the result of the PERSCOM not properly approving his request, appears to be without merit.

2.  The applicant’s records do not indicate that he attended the formal training necessary to support the reclassification he requested.  Therefore, the PERSCOM correctly denied his request until he submitted the documentation necessary to support his request.  Therefore, there is no basis to     backdate his reclassification and grant him promotion reconsideration.

3.  Inasmuch as promotion boards do not release information regarding their reasons for selection or nonselection of individuals for promotion, the applicant’s contention that his failure to be considered for promotion in MOS 250B is the reason he was not promoted to CW4 is purely speculation on his part and is not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

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