APPLICANT REQUESTS:  A review of the circumstances surrounding her promotion eligibility to the pay grade of   E-6 and retroactive promotion to that grade if an injustice exists.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she initially provided the servicing military personnel office (MILPO) with a copy of her college transcript in April 1995 when she arrived in Hawaii so that it would be present in her records for her June 1995 recomputation.  However, when she visited the MILPO in June she discovered that her transcript was missing and although she attempted to ascertain its whereabouts, she was unable to obtain another copy until August 1995.  Inasmuch as her recomputation was scheduled for June 1995, but was not conducted until August 1995, the transcript was not accepted by the MILPO because it was not dated prior to the recomputation month as required by the regulation.  She goes on to explain that after all attempts to resolve the problem failed at the MILPO level, she sought the advice of her chain of command and the inspector general and was informed, in effect, that there was nothing that could be done in her case.  She further states that she believes that had she been allowed to add the additional college credits she may have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 September 1995. 

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

She enlisted on 25 June 1986 for a period of 3 years and for training as an administrative specialist.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 January 1993 and has remained on active duty through a series of reenlistments. 

On 26 December 1995 a request for promotion point guidance was sent to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) requesting clarification of the applicant’s correct promotion points.  The PERSCOM promotions branch determined at that time that the documents provided by the applicant to verify her college credits were not acceptable to award her promotion point credit and computed her points as being 771 effective June 1995. 
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record.  

3.  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