APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests that he be retroactively promoted to pay grade E-6 effective September 1983.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, because he was on emergency leave he was not credited with the appropriate number of points which would have given him sufficient points to exceed the 840 points necessary for promotion during that month.  He states when he “found out that [he] could appeal this action” his supervisor “caused [him] to be harassed” resulting in two UCMJ actions and the appearance he “had suddenly become a substandard soldier.”  He believes if he was promoted his “conditions upon retirement would have been improved, thus leading to a better pension.”

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

He served an initial period of active duty with the Air Force between April 1970 and April 1974 and was separated in pay grade E-4.  He enlisted in the Army in pay grade E-4 in July 1974.

In January 1977 he received UCMJ action for resisting apprehension, drunk and disorderly and communicating a threat.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3 which was suspended.  He was promoted to pay grade E-5 in March 1977.

Although there is no indication when the applicant attained E-6 promotion list status his points were recomputed in February 1983 while he was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana. His score was computed at 830 out of a possible 1000.  The applicant, who was recorded as a “no show,” did not authenticate the computation.  The points reflected on the computation worksheet appear consistent with documentation contained in the applicant’s military personnel file.  In August 1983 his promotion points were recomputed again, resulting in a score of 852.  A copy of 

the promotion computation worksheet is not part of the applicant’s records.  The score was obtained from a promotion point standing list submitted by the applicant.  

In May 1984 the applicant was transferred to Panama.  While the applicant’s initial performance evaluation reports, after his arrival in Panama, were the highest he had received in his career (average of 124 out of 125), his performance scores began to drop with the evaluation report ending in August 1987.  By May 1989 the applicant received a marginal performance rating.  There were three reports rendered between August 1987 and May 1989 and each involved different rating officials.

Between February 1988 and May 1988 he was formally counseled on four separation occasions for repeated failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  As a result of his failure to be at his appointed place of duty on 19 May 1988 he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-4, which upon his appeal was suspended until 2 December 1988.

In July 1988 and November 1988 the applicant was counseled on inappropriate language and disrespect.  On 5 February 1989 he was cited for a domestic disturbance by military police personnel and referred to family counseling.  As a result of a 14 May 1989 disorderly incident involving the military police the applicant received UCMJ action and was reduced to pay grade E-4.  His appeal was denied.

The applicant was allowed to extend his enlistment contract in May 1990 in order to qualify for retirement effective 
31 July 1990.  On 31 July 1990 he was released from active duty with 20 years of active federal service in pay grade E-4.  His name was placed on the retired list effective 1 August 1990.

During the applicant’s career he was awarded one Army Commendation Medal, an Army Achievement Medal, three Good 


Conduct Medals, and several letters of appreciation.  His average performance evaluation score prior to his arrival in Panama was 119 out of a possible 125.

Army Regulation 600-200, which outlines the policy and procedures for promotion to pay grade E-6, the establishment of promotion point cut-off scores, and the maintenance of promotion point standing lists states that individual’s on a promotion standing list to pay grade E-6 will have their promotion points recomputed on a semiannual-annual basis; in February using records as of the last day of January and in August using records as of the last day of July.  The new score become effective 3 months from date of recomputation.  In other words points recomputed in February become valid for promotion purposes beginning in May and points computed in August are valid beginning in November.

Telephonic information received from the Army Personnel Command indicated that the May 1983 cut-off score for promotion to pay grade E-6 in the applicant’s specialty was 945, between June and August 1983 the cut-off score was 975. In September and October 1983 the cut-off score was 846 and in November 1983 it returned to 975.

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.  While the applicant maintains he had enough promotion points to meet the promotion cut off score for promotion to E-6 in September 1983 he provides no evidence or documentation which supports that contention.  Based on his February 1983 computation worksheet his promotion score appears to be correct and there is no evidence the August score was incorrect.

3.  His belief that it was his supervisor who created the appearance he was “suddenly a substandard soldier” and somehow prevented his promotion is not supported by the evidence.  The applicant’s declining performance was noted by different raters.  His May 1988 UCMJ action was preceded by numerous counseling statements and the May 1989 UCMJ was the result of the applicant’s own disorderly conduct and did not involve the supervisor the applicant maintains caused him to be harassed.

4.  The applicant’s reduction following his May 1989 UCMJ action was appropriate and there is no evidence which indicates he was unjustly denied promotion to pay grade E-6.

5.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the 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