2. The applicant requests an adjustment of her date of rank (DOR) from 7 July 1995 to 1 July 1995. 3. The applicant states that she met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 July 1995, but was not timely notified that she was required to extend her enlistment for a period of 3 months in order to meet the service remaining requirement (1 year of remaining service) for promotion. Consequently, she was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 7 July 1995. She goes on to state that the servicing personnel office sent the notice to her commander on 20 June 1995 and that she was not notified until late (1600 hours) on 29 June 1995. She further states that she was advised that due to the upcoming holiday (Fourth of July) she could not extend any sooner; however, she would still be promoted effective 1 July 1995. However, she extended her enlistment on 6 July 1995 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 7 July 1995. 4. The applicant’s military records indicate that she initially enlisted on 13 January 1981 and served until she was honorably discharged on 17 January 1989. She again enlisted in the pay grade of E-5 on 26 January 1990 and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments. 5. On 20 June 1995, the servicing personnel office at Fort Lewis, Washington, sent a notice to the applicant’s commander notifying him that the applicant met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6, effective 1 July 1995. The notice also informed the commander that the applicant must take action to meet the service remaining requirement for promotion no later than 30 June 1995 in order to be promoted. There is nothing in the available records to indicate that the applicant was provided a copy of the notice. 6. The applicant submitted a request for extension of enlistment (for a period of 3 months) for the purpose of meeting the service remaining requirements for promotion on 6 July 1995. Her commander approved the requests the same day and she was extended on 7 July 1995. Orders were published on 12 July 1995 promoting her to the pay grade of E-6 on 7 July 1995. 7. 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. 8. 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 been properly/timely notified of the requirement to extend her enlistment in order to be promoted on 1 July 1995, she would have taken the action necessary to execute the extension of service. 2. Although the Board is aware that the applicant’s date of rank is correct based on the date she 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 she was not notified in sufficient time to timely execute an extension of service. It is inconceivable that the applicant would not have executed the extension of service earlier than she did had she known it was required of her. Consequently, she has been denied a financial gain that she 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 (when the established systems fail or do not work as designed, or when mission requirements dictate otherwise) and this appears to be one of those instances. 4. Likewise, it is not equitable and just that soldiers who are not timely notified that action is required on their part, 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 July 1995 with a same date of rank and that she receive all appropriate pay and allowances resulting from that promotion. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON