2. The applicant requests an adjustment of her date of rank (DOR) from 7 July 1995 to 1 July 1995.
3. The applicant states that she met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 July 1995, but was not timely notified that she was required to extend her enlistment for a period of 3 months in order to meet the service remaining requirement (1 year of remaining service) for promotion. Consequently, she was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 7 July 1995. She goes on to state that the servicing personnel office sent the notice to her commander on 20 June 1995 and that she was not notified until late (1600 hours) on 29 June 1995. She further states that she was advised that due to the upcoming holiday (Fourth of July) she could not extend any sooner; however, she would still be promoted effective 1 July 1995. However, she extended her enlistment on 6 July 1995 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 7 July 1995.
4. The applicants military records indicate that she initially enlisted on 13 January 1981 and served until she was honorably discharged on 17 January 1989. She again enlisted in the pay grade of E-5 on 26 January 1990 and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.
5. On 20 June 1995, the servicing personnel office at Fort Lewis, Washington, sent a notice to the applicants commander notifying him that the applicant met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6, effective 1 July 1995. The notice also informed the commander that the applicant must take action to meet the service remaining requirement for promotion no later than 30 June 1995 in order to be promoted. There is nothing in the available records to indicate that the applicant was provided a copy of the notice.
6. The applicant submitted a request for extension of enlistment (for a period of 3 months) for the purpose of meeting the service remaining requirements for promotion on 6 July 1995. Her commander approved the requests the same day and she was extended on 7 July 1995. Orders were published on 12 July 1995 promoting her to the pay grade of E-6 on 7 July 1995.
7. On 27 February 1991 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel dispatched in message form, promotion exceptions to policy to Army Regulation 635-200, in support of Operation Desert Storm, It stated, in pertinent part, that effective 1 March 1991. the 12-month service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 was suspended until further notice.
8. On 1 November 1991, Army Regulation 600-8-19 superseded Army Regulation 635-200 and reinstated the 12-month service remaining requirement for promotion to the pay grade of E-6.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is reasonable to presume that had the applicant been properly/timely notified of the requirement to extend her enlistment in order to be promoted on 1 July 1995, she would have taken the action necessary to execute the extension of service.
2. Although the Board is aware that the applicants date of rank is correct based on the date she was able to take steps to meet the service remaining requirements, it is apparent to the Board that the applicant has suffered an injustice, in that she was not notified in sufficient time to timely execute an extension of service. It is inconceivable that the applicant would not have executed the extension of service earlier than she did had she known it was required of her. Consequently, she has been denied a financial gain that she otherwise would have been able to obtain.
3. While the Board recognizes that the applicable regulation requires soldiers to take steps to meet the service remaining requirement before they may be promoted, the Board also recognizes that there are instances where exceptions must be made (when the established systems fail or do not work as designed, or when mission requirements dictate otherwise) and this appears to be one of those instances.
4. Likewise, it is not equitable and just that soldiers who are not timely notified that action is required on their part, be penalized unnecessarily for circumstances beyond their control. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to grant the applicants request.
5. In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice 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 pay grade E-6 effective 1 July 1995 with a same date of rank and that she receive all appropriate pay and allowances resulting from that promotion.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080962C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that she was unjustly denied enlistment in the pay grade of E-5 because of an erroneously initiated Declination of Continued Service Statement (DA Form 4991-R). While the applicant may now believe that she made a mistake by not completing her foreign service tour and having a DCSS initiated against her, the fact remains that she did not...
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 | CY2008 | 20080013316
The applicant's military personnel records show that he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 8 years on 23 December 1983. The Court dismissed the applicants claim insofar as he requested that the Court order his retroactive promotion because the Court does not have jurisdiction to review and order military promotion decisions. The period of time (i.e., 3 months) from initial computation and/or recomputation of promotion points to the effective date of promotion point...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066111C070421
He was subsequently promoted, but the promotion was revoked because he had not taken the required action within the promotion month in accordance with the applicable regulation. The PERSCOM officials opined that since there was no evidence that he had been properly notified of the requirement to extend or reenlist, that he should be granted an exception to policy to accept the promotion effective the day he reenlisted (22 March 2001). Although the Board agrees with the opinion of the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1992-02810
A complete copy of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Memorandum and Order, is attached at Exhibit H. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Personnel and Training, Air National Guard (ANG/DP), reviewed this application and states the administrative record reviewed and referenced by the court includes Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and a Training Report (TR) that were available to the Board at the time the Board considered applicant’s requests. Upon carefully...
A complete copy of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Memorandum and Order, is attached at Exhibit H. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Personnel and Training, Air National Guard (ANG/DP), reviewed this application and states the administrative record reviewed and referenced by the court includes Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and a Training Report (TR) that were available to the Board at the time the Board considered applicant’s requests. Upon carefully...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03464
Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed from 1 June 2013, to 28 May 2009; the date she reentered the Regular Air Force 3. They reaccomplished the applicants Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS)_ evaluation worksheet based upon her updated point credit summary report and deemed that she still does not meet the requirements in accordance with AFI 36- 2002, Regular Air Force and Special Category Accessions, paragraph Attachment 4, paragraph A4.2, Prior Service (PS) Date of Rank and...
Therefore, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 for the 15-18 January 1991 period because it was in direct support of ODS/S. Since the injury she received while on active duty in 1991 caused her to be permanently retired for disability in 1995, she should have been placed on the TDRL in 1991 and not ordered to participate while disabled. 4 96-02626 A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02073
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02073 INDEX CODE: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Extended Active Duty (EAD) date be changed from 25 Oct 05 to 11 Aug 05 to prevent a break in service, restore her promotion line number, and clear a debt for back pay and...