APPLICANT REQUESTS: A review of the circumstances surrounding her promotion eligibility to the pay grade of E-6 and retroactive promotion to that grade if an injustice exists.
APPLICANT STATES: That she initially provided the servicing military personnel office (MILPO) with a copy of her college transcript in April 1995 when she arrived in Hawaii so that it would be present in her records for her June 1995 recomputation. However, when she visited the MILPO in June she discovered that her transcript was missing and although she attempted to ascertain its whereabouts, she was unable to obtain another copy until August 1995. Inasmuch as her recomputation was scheduled for June 1995, but was not conducted until August 1995, the transcript was not accepted by the MILPO because it was not dated prior to the recomputation month as required by the regulation. She goes on to explain that after all attempts to resolve the problem failed at the MILPO level, she sought the advice of her chain of command and the inspector general and was informed, in effect, that there was nothing that could be done in her case. She further states that she believes that had she been allowed to add the additional college credits she may have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 September 1995.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted on 25 June 1986 for a period of 3 years and for training as an administrative specialist. She was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 January 1993 and has remained on active duty through a series of reenlistments.
On 26 December 1995 a request for promotion point guidance was sent to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) requesting clarification of the applicants correct promotion points. The PERSCOM promotions branch determined at that time that the documents provided by the applicant to verify her college credits were not acceptable to award her promotion point credit and computed her points as being 771 effective June 1995.
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. The applicants contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record.
3. 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 | 9507760C070209
His enlistment contract specified that he was entitled to enlistment in pay grade of E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210, table 2-3, rule E-3, based on his education. When the applicant received a recomputation for promotion to pay grade E-6 and was only awarded 50 promotion points for the credits listed on the same transcript. Had the applicant properly received credit (75 promotion points for 75 semester hours) for his civilian education, he would have received an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710522C070209
She contends that the Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) wrongly removed 41 promotion points from the recomputation of her DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) for August 1995. Under education the 41 promotion points previously awarded from the Orleans Technical Institute were removed. 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 March 1996 with a same...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609631C070209
Paragraph 2-20f states, in effect, that an applicant who has successfully completed 60 or more classroom semester hours of an accredited college or university will be enlisted in pay grade E-3. The applicant should have been promoted to pay grade E-3 on 16 June 1995, the date she entered basic training, under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 2-20l. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710522
She contends that the Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) wrongly removed 41 promotion points from the recomputation of her DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) for August 1995. The applicant’s was granted 881 promotion points on her initial DA Form 3355, dated 10 August 1992. Under civilian education she was granted a total of 48 promotion points, 41 points were earned at Orleans Technical Institute.
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 | 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 | 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511829C070209
The applicant requests that her records be corrected to reflect that she was authorized to enlist in the pay grade of E-2 and that she is entitled to back pay and allowances from the date of her enlistment until 9 May 1995. The applicant states that at the time of her enlistment she did not have a copy of her college transcripts and therefore had to enlist in the pay grade of E-1. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending...
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 | 2002082159C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his transfer to the Retired Reserve be revoked and that he be reinstated in the US Army Reserve (USAR) Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) in order to serve until his Mandatory Removal Date (MRD) of 1 July 2004. On 26 November 2002, the applicant was released from his TPU and was transferred to the Retired Reserve, effective 1 December 2002,...