2. In effect, the applicant requests retroactive promotion to Sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1990. 3. The applicant states that a packet for promotion to Sergeant was supposed to be submitted in the spring of 1989 to the unit administrator (UA), who told him (the applicant), that the packet had been forwarded to the promotion board. Not receiving the results of that board, the applicant was informed at various times by the UA that he (the UA) had yet to receive the results. The UA finally told him that the board was canceled. Another soldier informed the applicant that this was not so, and that his packet was never forwarded to the board. His new commander informed him that everything would be taken care of. He was promoted on 14 March 1990. He was activated in support of Desert Storm, and after his return from Germany, he submitted a packet for promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, only to find out that his 14 March 1990 promotion orders to Sergeant were false, and not valid. He had to resubmit a packet for promotion (again) to Sergeant, and was promoted to that rank on 1 June 1992. However, he has lost two years time in grade because of the erroneous promotion orders. He should have become eligible for promotion to SSG in November of 1991. 4. The applicant is a Vietnam veteran who enlisted in the Army Reserve on 17 October 1987 and reenlisted for 6 years on 12 October 1988. 5. On 20 December 1991 the applicant’s battalion commander appointed an officer to investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged falsifying of official orders to promote the applicant. The investigating officer found that the applicant’s 14 March 1990 promotion order to Sergeant was, in all likelihood false. He found that the applicant served as a Sergeant, not knowing that the promotion was not valid, that the applicant was recommended for promotion to SSG while on active duty in early 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm, and upon completion of his active duty the applicant prepared his packet for submission to a promotion board. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that the applicant’s promotion order to Sergeant was false. That officer concluded that the applicant was a soldier of high integrity and unwavering honesty, and that the applicant was not involved in the falsifying of promotion orders. He stated that the applicant was fully qualified for promotion as far back as 1988, that the applicant should be considered and promoted to Sergeant, retroactive to 14 March 1990, and that he should also be considered for SSG by the next available promotion board. The investigating officer recommended that the applicant not be required to reimburse the government for the monies received as a result of the false promotion. 6. Orders from the 96th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) indicate that the applicant was promoted to Sergeant on 14 March 1990 [this is the supposedly erroneous promotion order]. 7. A statement from an NCO PAC (Personnel and Administrative Center) supervisor, indicates that he was informed by an official at the 96th ARCOM, the applicant’s major Reserve command, that the applicant’s records had never been reviewed by a promotion board, and the applicant was never promoted. That official also stated that no promotion packet had ever been received on the applicant. After receiving a set of the 14 March 1990 orders, the PAC supervisor concluded that those orders were false, based on the discrepancy in the sequence of the order number. The 96th ARCOM official confirmed that the orders were false. 8. NCO evaluation reports ending November 1990 and May 1991 show the applicant’s rank as Sergeant, as do other documents in his record, including his 18 May 1991 document separating him from active duty (ordered to active duty in support of Desert Storm). The applicant’s senior rater on his report ending in November 1990 recommended that he be promoted immediately to SSG. His rater on his report ending in May 1991 considered his potential for promotion among the best. His reviewer, who was also his commanding officer, concurred with this evaluation. 9. The applicant was promoted to Sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 1992. 10. On 28 August 1992 the applicant was recommended for promotion to Staff Sergeant. The applicant has since been promoted to that rank effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 1993 (subsequent to the date of his application to this Board). CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant was erroneously promoted to Sergeant on 14 March 1990. The applicant contends that he was not aware that the promotion was erroneous. He is supported in this by the officer who investigated the circumstances concerning this erroneous promotion. This Board agrees with the applicant’s contention and the investigating officer’s conclusion. 2. The applicant served as a Sergeant in good faith from 14 March 1990, the date of his erroneous promotion. His evaluation reports and other documents after that date, show his rank as Sergeant, and he was recognized as a Sergeant by personnel in his chain of command. Although his records do not so indicate, he would have had to revert to his former grade of E-4, sometime after the discovery of the erroneous promotion. He was correctly promoted to Sergeant on 1 June 1992. 3. The applicant’s contention, supported by the investigation officer’s conclusion, that his promotion to Sergeant should be retroactive to 14 March 1990 is well taken by this Board. In the interest of justice and fairness, the applicant’s records should be changed to show that he was promoted to Sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1990, and that he receive all due pay and allowances as a result of this promotion. 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 Sergeant E-5 effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1990, and that he receive all pay and allowances due as a result of this promotion. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON