APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the effective date and date of rank of her promotion to pay grade E-6 be adjusted from 12 October 1995 to 1 November 1994. APPLICANT STATES: That she made the cutoff score for promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSG) (pay grade E-6) on 1 November 1994, however, she was pregnant and could not attend the basic NCO course (BNCOC). Her commander requested a waiver, which was disapproved because she had been a “no show” for a previous course. She later discovered that the reason the request for waiver was disapproved was because of her temporary profile as a result of her pregnancy. She believes that she should not have been punished because of this condition. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was awarded a temporary profile based on her pregnancy in May 1994, with a projected delivery date of her child on 26 November 1994. On 7 November 1994 the applicant’s battalion commander requested that the applicant be promoted to SSG on 1 November 1994 as an exception to the policy requiring a soldier to be a graduate of BNCOC prior to promotion. That officer stated that the applicant’s postpartum profile would not end until sometime in May 1995 and the applicant would not be eligible for BNCOC attendance until June 1995. He stated that she should not be denied promotion due to a temporary medical condition. That request for an exception to policy was disapproved by the Chief of the Specialized Training Management Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) on 28 December 1994. That official stated, in effect, that the applicant did not attend a previous course for which she was scheduled, and did not attend a later course because of her temporary profile. He went on to say that waivers are granted to those soldiers who are fully qualified to attend but have not been afforded the opportunity to do so. The applicant completed BNCOC on 12 October 1995 and was promoted to SSG effective and with a date of rank of that date, based on making the cutoff score for promotion to SSG in her specialty on 1 November 1994. In the processing of this case, an informal opinion was obtained from an official in the NCO Education System (NCOES) Branch at PERSCOM. That official stated that waivers are granted to those soldiers who are fully qualified to attend BNCOC, but because of their circumstances, i.e., deployed, attending another course, have not been afforded the opportunity to do so. That official stated that in order for a soldier to be fully qualified to attend a NCOES course, that soldier must meet the Army height and weight standards and be able to take and pass the physical fitness test. He stated, in effect, that a soldier with a temporary profile, i.e., a pregnant soldier or one with a broken leg or broken arm, would not be fully qualified and would not be able to attend BNCOC. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the policies and procedures for enlisted promotions. Paragraph 3-34k(3) of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that soldiers are required to be graduates of BNCOC prior to promotion to SSG. 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 not fully qualified to attend BNCOC, and an exception to policy was not appropriate. While it is unfortunate that her temporary profile prevented her from attending BNCOC, she was not punished because of her condition. The applicant was treated no differently than any other soldier with a temporary profile. 2. The applicant could have attended an earlier BNCOC, but as she herself states, she did not show for that course, an obvious wasted opportunity. She was afforded the opportunity to attend when she was fully qualified. The Board can find no injustice in the applicant’s situation. 3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 5. 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