Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710522
Original file (9710522.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
2. The applicant requests, in effect, retroactive reevaluation of her promotion points and promotion to pay grade E-6 effective 1 March 1996 vice 1 May 1997. 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. She had earned those promotion points for course work completed at Orleans Technical Institute. These points had been previously accepted on her initial DA Form 3355. The action by the PSB prevented her promotion to pay grade E-6 on 1 March 1996.

3. On 2 March 1995 the applicant, with over 9 years of prior active service, reenlisted for 4 years. She was promoted to pay grade E-6 effective 1 May 1997.

4. 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. Her primary military occupational specialty (MOS) is 75D (Personnel Services Specialist).

5. Her August 1995 recomputation awarded her 776 promotion points. Under education the 41 promotion points previously awarded from the Orleans Technical Institute were removed.

6. The Department of the Army promotion cut-off score for 1 March 1996, in the applicant’s MOS, for pay grade E-6 was 794 points.

7. The Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) in a comment to the Board advised, in effect, that its review of the case confirms the applicant’s contentions and recommended granting her request.

CONCLUSIONS :

1. The evidence of record supports the applicant’s contention that the removal of 41 promotion points she earned from Orleans Technical Institute was improper.

2. Had this error not occurred, the applicant would have met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to pay grade E-6 for 1 March 1996.

3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected 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 March 1996 with a same date of rank.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                 
                  CHAIRPERSON










                 

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710522C070209

    Original file (9710522C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 9607642C070209

    Original file (9607642C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY1997 | 9711009

    Original file (9711009.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, retroactive promotion to pay grade E-5 effective 1 April 1997 and adjustment of his selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). His DA Form 3355, dated 1 January 1997 awarded the applicant 465 promotion points. Apparently, during a subsequent review, it was determined that the applicant’s DA Form 3355 was not accompanied with the proper paperwork to support the promotion points awarded for ranger training and the Ranger Tab and he in fact did not meet the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507760C070209

    Original file (9507760C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY1996 | 9605399C070209

    Original file (9605399C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | 20080013316

    Original file (20080013316.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 | CY1997 | 9710074

    Original file (9710074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That had the Personnel Services Battalion (PSB) properly credited his DD 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet), with 10 points for educational improvement, he would have met the promotion cut off score for 1 March 1997. An initial DA Form 3355, dated 6 November 1996 awarded the applicant 728 promotion points. In an advisory opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personal Command (PERSCOM) advised that Army policy provides that the addition of points not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710074C070209

    Original file (9710074C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES: That had the Personnel Services Battalion (PSB) properly credited his DD 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet), with 10 points for educational improvement, he would have met the promotion cut off score for 1 March 1997. An initial DA Form 3355, dated 6 November 1996 awarded the applicant 728 promotion points. In an advisory opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personal Command (PERSCOM) advised that Army policy provides that the addition of points not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067506C070402

    Original file (2002067506C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The promotion recommended list for the promotion of enlisted personnel for the Tampa Recruiting Battalion, dated 24 August 2001, confirm that the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGT/E-5 and that she had attained 638 points. The personnel administrator concludes that it should be the MPD’s responsibility to correct this problem, but instead of meeting this responsibility, they require the applicant to apply to this Board for correction of military records. The Chief, Promotions...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003698

    Original file (20110003698.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There are no orders or other evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that shows he was promoted to pay grade E-5. The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-5 because he was recommended for promotion, but when he was reassigned his records were lost and, as a result, he was not promoted. c. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-5 during the period of service under review.