MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002079448

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his date of rank (DOR) of 3 July 2002 be adjusted to 16 August 2001.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was erroneously placed on the Order of Merit List (OML) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 77F, petroleum supply specialist, instead of 51K, plumber, due to no fault of his own.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his promotion orders, two e-mail responses, and five memorandums.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show that he is currently serving in the Army Reserve with the 955th Engineer Company, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

The applicant provided a copy of an e-mail response dated 1 May 2001, from the 89th Regional Support Command (RSC) that indicated that he was listed as a 77F on the latest OML.  However, he should be listed as a 51K and his Promotion Eligibility Worksheet showed his current MOS and recommended MOS to be the 51 series.  

On 26 August 2001, the applicant's records appeared before the 648th Area Support Group (ASG) Enlisted Promotion Board.  He was recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6 in MOS 77F30 and was placed on the OML.

The applicant provided a copy of another e-mail response, dated 2 May 2002, that stated that the 89th RSC had an order awarding the applicant the MOS of 51K, effective 11 July 1998.

On 6 May 2002, the 329th Quartermaster Battalion Commander prepared a memorandum, Subject:  Request for Promotion.  This memorandum was in response to the applicant's promotion to SSG on the OML.  The commander stated that the applicant's promotion packet was forwarded to the 648th ASG on 16 August 2001 for the August promotion board.  The packet requested that the applicant be placed on the OML as a 51K20, which converts to MOS 51H30, construction engineering supervisor, at the E-6/SSG level.  He was erroneously placed on the OML dated 12 September 2001 as a 77F.  The Battalion S-1 submitted documentation to the 648th ASG to have the error on the OML corrected by the 89th RSC.  The vacancy for MOS 51H was announced by the unit and listed by the 89th RSC; however, the correction to the OML had not been corrected, and therefore, the applicant had not been promoted to the rank of SSG. 

On 25 June 2002, the supervisory staff administrator submitted a request to the 89th RSC requesting that the applicant's recommended MOS (RMOS) of 77F be changed to 51H.

He was promoted to SSG/E-6 effective 3 July 2002, with a DOR of 3 July 2002, in MOS 51H.

On 26 August 2002, the Assistant Inspector General (IG), 89th RSC, prepared a reply in regards to the applicant's telephonic request for assistance.  A thorough inquiry was conducted into his request for assistance.  The applicant was placed on the OML as a 77F instead of 51K.  The G-1 was notified of the error on 16 May 2002.  The applicant's promotion orders could not be published as the Regional Level Application Software (RLAS) reflected that he was flagged for Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  His flag was removed on 3 July 2002, and promotion orders were published the same day.  The G-1 recommended that the applicant apply to this Board for relief.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the Military Personnel Officer, Headquarters, 89th RSC.  The opinion stated that the applicant was requesting that his DOR for promotion be adjusted to 16 August 2001.  Through no fault of his own, he was placed on the OML as a 77F30.  His MOS was 51K, which converted to 51H at the pay grade of E-6/SSG.  The command requested that his unit submit a letter through his chain of command explaining the erroneous boarding.  The command received e-mail responses on 1 and 2 May 2002, and again in memorandum format on 6 May 2002.  His MOS was reported to the promotion board erroneously for promotion and promotion orders could not be published because the RLAS reflected a flagging action for APFT failure.  The IG findings concluded that applicant's unit removed the flag on 3 July 2002 and promotion orders were published.  The command at that time had no supporting documentation to validate adjusting his DOR.  Therefore, his DOR of 3 July 2002 remains unchanged.

The applicant was provided a copy of this opinion for possible comment prior to consideration of this case but no response was received.

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 appeared before the enlisted promotion board on 26 August 2001, was recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 77F, and was placed on the OML.  

2.  He was erroneously placed on the OML dated 12 September 2001 as a 77F and documentation was submitted to have the error corrected by the 89th RSC.  

3.  The IG was notified of the error and a thorough inquiry was conducted into his request for assistance.  Promotion orders were unable to be published because the RLAS reflected that the applicant was flagged for APFT.  His flag was removed on 3 July 2002 and orders were published with an effective date and DOR of 3 July 2002.  

4.  His contentions are noted.  However, the error was corrected and it was discovered that he was flagged for APFT failure on the RLAS, which prevented his promotion at an earlier date. Therefore, this Board finds that after review of the evidence provided that there is no basis to adjust his DOR from 3 July 2002 to 16 August 2001.

5.  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 this requirement.

6.  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

___ao___  __kh____  ___tr___ DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    Of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070448	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030605	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE	USAR	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	21	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.