APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his date of rank for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 to reflect 1 January 1995 instead of 1 March 1995.
APPLICANT STATES: That his promotion to the pay grade of E-5 was unjustly delayed because he was unable to attend the primary leadership development course (PLDC) any earlier than he did because of mission requirements requiring him to deploy to West Point and Haiti in support of military operations. He further states that he met the cut-off score for promotion to E-5 on 1 January 1995 but could not be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 until he completed PLDC on 14 March 1995. He goes on to state that he attended the first class available and believes he should have been promoted on 1 January 1995. In support of his application he submits a memorandum from his commander supporting his efforts to have his date of rank backdated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 8 July 1992 for a period of 4 years and training as legal specialist (71D).
The applicant met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71D on 1 January 1995. However, because he had not attended the PLDC or requested a waiver of the PLDC requirement, he was not promoted until he completed the course. There is no indication in the available records to show when the applicant attained list status or if he ever requested attendance at the PLDC any sooner than scheduled.
He attended the PLDC from 13 February 1995 through 14 March 1995 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 14 March 1995.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). It opined, in effect, that in the absence of a properly approved waiver of the PLDC requirement, the applicant had been properly promoted to the pay grade of E-5 after completion of the PLDC. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied.
The supporting statement from the applicants commander indicates that the applicant was deployed to West Point from 31 May to 10 August 1994 (72 days) in support of Operation Black Knight and to Haiti from 25 September to 30 October 1994 (35 days). The commander indicated that the applicant could not attend PLDC due to his deployments and should be granted retroactive promotion consideration.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing the promotion of Army enlisted personnel. It states, in pertinent part, that linkage of NCOES to promotions ensures that NCOs are provided the appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes before they assume the duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade. This linkage also aligns the NCO professional/leader development system with the Army philosophy of Train, Promote, and Utilize. Effective 1 October 1989, soldiers were required to be graduates of PLDC in order to be promoted to the pay grade of E-5. Soldiers who met a cut-off score on or after 1 October 1989, but were not PLDC graduates, provided otherwise eligible, would be promoted on the first day of the month following graduation. However, under current policy, soldiers will be promoted on the day of successful completion of PLDC. Exceptions to this policy (Requirement to complete PLDC prior to promotion) may be requested from the PERSCOM. Exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis when the soldier is fully qualified to attend training and no PLDC vacancies exists or mission requirements prevent the individual from attending.
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 properly promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 14 March 1995, upon successful completion of the PLDC.
2. Although the applicant has not indicated, nor do his records indicate when he originally attained list standing for promotion to the pay grade of E-5, it appears to the Board that neither the applicant, nor his command, took any steps to get a quota for him to attend PLDC until he met the cut-off score for promotion. Not only could he have requested a waiver of the PLDC requirement in the event that he met the cut-off score while deployed, he very possibly could have requested attendance at an earlier date. In any event, the applicant has failed to convince the Board that his deployments for a three month period seriously hampered his ability to attend the PLDC.
3. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that an error or injustice exists in his case. The applicant was aware of the requirement to complete PLDC prior to promotion, and there is no evidence to suggest that he would have attended PLDC any earlier than scheduled or that he could have anticipated meeting the cut-off score and would have submitted an application for an exception to policy. Therefore, to grant the applicants requests would afford him a benefit not given to others in similar situations.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511946C070209
He goes on to state that he requested and received a waiver of the BNCOC requirement, but was unable to be promoted until he completed the BNCOC. On 20 August 1995 the applicant submitted a request for an exception to policy that would allow him to be promoted prior to completion of the BNCOC. The applicant successfully completed the BNCOC on 15 March 1996 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on that date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608922C070209
The applicants commander submitted a request for an exception to policy dated 19 December 1995, that would allow her to be promoted prior to completion of BNCOC. The Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) Branch of the PERSCOM approved a waiver of the BNCOC requirement and indicated that the applicant was scheduled to attend a BNCOC class from 18 April to 25 June 1996. The applicant successfully completed BNCOC on 25 June 1996 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on that date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711772
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. In the processing of this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711836
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS : That the effective date and date of rank (DOR) of his promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be changed from 16 May 1996 to 1 February 1996. On 1 February 1996 the applicant submitted a request for an exception to policy for promotion prior to completing the BNCOC. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605399C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his promotion points worksheets (DA Form 3355) be reconstructed to determine if he met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion prior to 1 September 1995. Exceptions to this policy (Requirement to complete BNCOC prior to promotion) may be requested from the PERSCOM. The Board also notes that the earliest the applicant could have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6, based on the information contained in his records, and assuming he met the cut-off score,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610255C070209
She attended the following class, and was promoted on 7 December 1995, the graduation date of that class. Notwithstanding the opinion from the PERSCOM official, the applicant could not have requested a waiver of the BNCOC requirement prior to her promotion because there was no need to do so - she was unaware that she had been scheduled for the May 1995 class until after she had been promoted. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508806C070209
The applicant states that two other soldiers received an exception to policy, one because he did not have a seat for the May 1993 class; and the other after attending the May 1993 class, because he was not afforded the opportunity to attend BNCOC prior to the effective date of his promotion. On 17 November 1992 the applicants commanding officer requested an exception to the policy linking completion of BNCOC to promotion in order for the applicant to be promoted to pay grade E-6. On 16...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510637C070209
He goes on to state that he submitted his request for a PLDC equivalency which was approved on 4 October 1994 and submitted as a part of a reevaluation which became effective 1 March 1995. On 27 September 1993, during a promotion points recomputation, the applicant was granted 30 promotion points for having completed the PLDC while in the National Guard. The applicant submitted a request for PLDC equivalency on 12 September 1994.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002192
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, effective 1 May 2003. The regulation in effect on May 2003 provided, in pertinent part, conditional promotions for Soldiers who have met a cutoff score and are otherwise qualified, but have not completed PLDC, are authorized to be promoted (when approved by the promotion authority) when they are reflected on the OML for PLDC attendance, when they are operationally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507779C070209
He met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 15 November 1994 (for 1 December 1994 promotions), but was unable to execute an extension of service until 10 January 1995, that was necessary to meet the service remaining requirement (1 year of remaining service) for promotion. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...