2. In effect, the applicant requests promotion to Staff Sergeant E-6, effective 1 February 1995. 3. The applicant states that he submitted a request for promotion point revaluation (DA Form 3355-E) to his personnel administrative center (PAC) on 3 November 1994 to increase his promotion point total from 736 to 764. This paperwork was not forwarded to his personnel service center (PSC) until 31 January 1995. The cutoff score had dropped to 753 on 1 February 1995 and he would have been promoted to Staff Sergeant on that date had the documents been timely forwarded. 4. A DA Form 3355-E signed by the applicant on 2 November 1994, and by his commanding officer on 3 November 1994 indicates that the applicant’s total promotion points were 764. That document is shown as having been certified by an official at the applicant’s PSC at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 31 January 1995. 5. The cutoff score for promotion to Staff Sergeant in the applicant’s specialty for 1 February 1995 was 753. 6. The applicant requested that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) grant an exception to policy and that he be promoted to Staff Sergeant. He cited the aforementioned reason, i.e., the documents were not timely submitted, and also stated that he was deployed on a rotation during January 1995 when he discovered that his promotion packet had not been forwarded, but that the PAC promotion clerk had put his packet in a desk drawer and forgot about it. 7. The applicant was supported in his request by his company and battalion commanders. His company commander stated that the applicant’s unit was deployed to Haiti in September 1994, several key PAC personnel were deployed, and that the marked decrease in operational efficiency severely hampered the timely processing of administrative actions. He stated that immediately on discovery of the mishandling of the applicant’s promotion packet in January 1995, it was forwarded to the Fort Bragg PSC. The applicant’s battalion commander emulated the company commander’s comments, stated that the delay [in the submission of the request for reevaluation] was not the fault of the applicant, that the packet was submitted to the PAC on 4 November 1994, and requested that he be retroactively promoted. 8. On 9 May 1995 the PERSCOM disapproved the applicant’s request for retroactive promotion, stating that the applicant had not proved that he had submitted a request for reevaluation prior to January 1995, and therefore, his promotion points were effective on 1 April 1995. 9. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the PERSCOM Promotions Branch. An official of that branch stated that the applicant did not deploy with his unit, that he was part of the rear detachment which remained at Fort Bragg, and that the applicant had made no claim nor provided any documentation that he ever followed up on his paperwork. That official recommended that the applicant’s request be denied. 10. Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures for promotion of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-20 states, in pertinent part, that soldiers who believe they have increased their latest promotion score by 25 or more points can request an administrative reevaluation at any time. Commanders will complete and sign section A of the request (DA Form 3355). The PSC will compute the administrative points with a reevaluation date the month and year the request is received in the PSC. Promotion scores achieved through the reevaluation process are effective for promotion on the first day of the third month following the reevaluation month. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions that he requested a promotion point reevaluation in November 1994 is credible. He signed the DA Form 3355-E on 2 November; his company commander signed it on 3 November. Both his company and his battalion commanders strongly support the applicant’s request, averring that the applicant could not be faulted for the delay in the processing of the application. It is reasonable to assume that the request for reevaluation, submitted during the first week of November, would have reached the PSC by at least the end of that month. 2. Notwithstanding the PERSCOM opinion, the applicant’s reevaluated promotion point score of 764 should have been received and processed at the PSC in November and should have been effective for promotion on 1 February 1995, the first day of the third month following the reevaluation month (November). 3. The applicant exceeded the cutoff score for promotion to Staff Sergeant, pay grade E-6 on 1 February 1995. He should be promoted to that grade with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 1995, and receive all pay and allowances due. 4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate 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 Staff Sergeant, pay grade E-6, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1995, and that he receive all due pay and allowances from that date. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON