2. In effect, the applicant requests promotion to Staff Sergeant E-6, effective 1 February 1995.
3. The applicant states that he submitted a request for promotion point revaluation (DA Form 3355-E) to his personnel administrative center (PAC) on 3 November 1994 to increase his promotion point total from 736 to 764. This paperwork was not forwarded to his personnel service center (PSC) until 31 January 1995. The cutoff score had dropped to 753 on 1 February 1995 and he would have been promoted to Staff Sergeant on that date had the documents been timely forwarded.
4. A DA Form 3355-E signed by the applicant on
2 November 1994, and by his commanding officer on
3 November 1994 indicates that the applicants total promotion points were 764. That document is shown as having been certified by an official at the applicants PSC at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 31 January 1995.
5. The cutoff score for promotion to Staff Sergeant in the applicants specialty for 1 February 1995 was 753.
6. The applicant requested that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) grant an exception to policy and that he be promoted to Staff Sergeant. He cited the aforementioned reason, i.e., the documents were not timely submitted, and also stated that he was deployed on a rotation during January 1995 when he discovered that his promotion packet had not been forwarded, but that the PAC promotion clerk had put his packet in a desk drawer and forgot about it.
7. The applicant was supported in his request by his company and battalion commanders. His company commander stated that the applicants unit was deployed to Haiti in September 1994, several key PAC personnel were deployed, and that the marked decrease in operational efficiency severely hampered the timely processing of administrative actions. He stated that immediately on discovery of the mishandling of the applicants promotion packet in January 1995, it was forwarded to the Fort Bragg PSC. The applicants battalion commander emulated the company commanders comments, stated that the delay [in the submission of the request for reevaluation] was not the fault of the applicant, that the packet was submitted to the PAC on 4 November 1994, and requested that he be retroactively promoted.
8. On 9 May 1995 the PERSCOM disapproved the applicants request for retroactive promotion, stating that the applicant had not proved that he had submitted a request for reevaluation prior to January 1995, and therefore, his promotion points were effective on 1 April 1995.
9. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the PERSCOM Promotions Branch. An official of that branch stated that the applicant did not deploy with his unit, that he was part of the rear detachment which remained at Fort Bragg, and that the applicant had made no claim nor provided any documentation that he ever followed up on his paperwork. That official recommended that the applicants request be denied.
10. Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures for promotion of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-20 states, in pertinent part, that soldiers who believe they have increased their latest promotion score by 25 or more points can request an administrative reevaluation at any time. Commanders will complete and sign section A of the request (DA Form 3355). The PSC will compute the administrative points with a reevaluation date the month and year the request is received in the PSC. Promotion scores achieved through the reevaluation process are effective for promotion on the first day of the third month following the reevaluation month.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contentions that he requested a promotion point reevaluation in November 1994 is credible. He signed the DA Form 3355-E on 2 November; his company commander signed it on 3 November. Both his company and his battalion commanders strongly support the applicants request, averring that the applicant could not be faulted for the delay in the processing of the application. It is reasonable to assume that the request for reevaluation, submitted during the first week of November, would have reached the PSC by at least the end of that month.
2. Notwithstanding the PERSCOM opinion, the applicants reevaluated promotion point score of 764 should have been received and processed at the PSC in November and should have been effective for promotion on 1 February 1995, the first day of the third month following the reevaluation month (November).
3. The applicant exceeded the cutoff score for promotion to Staff Sergeant, pay grade E-6 on 1 February 1995. He should be promoted to that grade with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 1995, and receive all pay and allowances due.
4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants 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 Staff Sergeant, pay grade E-6, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1995, and that he receive all due pay and allowances from that date.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508222C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests retroactive promotion to Staff Sergeant, pay grade E-6 effective 1 January 1994. APPLICANT STATES: He states, in effect, that his southwest Asia service, worth four promotion points, was overlooked by the promotion NCO upon his initial promotion point computation in November 1992, and because these points were not awarded, he did not meet the cutoff score for promotion in February 1993, and was not promoted in January 1994, immediately after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605407C070209
The clerk stated that if the documents had been submitted on time the applicant would have been promoted in May. The applicant submitted a request for exception to policy on 25 April 1995, requesting that he be promoted on 1 May 1995 because of the circumstances concerning his documents for reevaluation of his promotion points. On 3 November 1995 an official of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Promotions Branch acknowledged the negligence involved in the processing of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018970
He provided: * A copy of the promotion board proceedings, dated June 2010 * A copy of the amended promotion board proceedings, dated May 2011 * A DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) * A noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) * A DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard) * Two DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) * Two DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * Army Training Transcript * Printout from the Army Training Requirements and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066580C070402
The PAC was advised that the packet was not received by the Personnel Service Company in time for the April 1991 promotion consideration. The PAC stated that when they inquired about a retroactive entitlement, they were informally notified that as the applicant's request was received after the cutoff date and there were no exceptions to the effective date for readjustment of points, no relief could be granted. Therefore, the Board concludes that an exception to policy should be made and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607642C070209
Consequently, the applicant met the promotion point cut-off score for 1 July 1996 and should be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective that date. In view of the determination by the PERSCOM and the foregoing conclusions, it would be appropriate to promote the applicant to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 July 1996. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual; concerned was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014904
The applicant requests: * correction of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) to reflect the correct date and number of promotion points to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * retroactive promotion to SGT/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 June 2011 2. However, as of 1 May 2011, the applicant was recorded as having 562 promotion points. Therefore, he cannot be promoted.
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002079665C070215
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 | CY2001 | 2001057517C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his application to show he was awarded 10 points for education improvement and promotion to the rank of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6), effective 1 July 2000. On 7July 1999, the applicant went before a promotion board and was awarded 751 promotion points. The Board concurs with the PERSCOM advisory opinion that the adjustment of the applicant’s promotion points from 751 to 741 and his being awarded 1 point for civilian education was...