Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710531
Original file (9710531.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
2. The applicant requests, in effect, retroactive reevaluation of his promotion points and promotion to pay grade E-5 effective 1 September 1997. He contends that he submitted his college transcripts to the PSNCO (personnel staff NCO) on 19 June 1997 to be included with his DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet). However, due to an oversight by the PSNCO his DA Form 3355 was not submitted until 15 July 1997 making his new promotion points not effective until 1 October 1997. If his worksheet had been timely submitted in June 1997, the points would have been effective 1 September 1997, the date he met the promotion point cut-off score. He submits letters from his chain of command, including the PSNCO, confirming and supporting the request.

3. On 12 December 1995 the applicant, with 3 years, 4 months and 28 days of prior active service, reenlisted for 4 years.

4. He was granted 575 promotion points on his July 1997 DA Form 3355. His primary military occupational specialty (MOS) is 55D (Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist).

5. The Department of the Army promotion cut-off score for 1 September 1997, in the applicant’s MOS, for pay grade E-5 was 560 points.

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

CONCLUSIONS :

1. The evidence of record supports the applicant’s contention that a delay on the part of the PSNCO held up processing his DA Form 3355.

2. Due to this delay, his promotion paperwork was not processed until July 1997 making his promotion points effective 1 October 1997. Had the PSNCO timely processed the promotion paperwork in June 1997 the applicant would have met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to pay grade E-5 for 1 September 1997.
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-5 effective 1 September 1997 with a same date of rank.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                 
                  CHAIRPERSON










                 

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710531C070209

    Original file (9710531C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, retroactive reevaluation of his promotion points and promotion to pay grade E-5 effective 1 September 1997. He was granted 575 promotion points on his July 1997 DA Form 3355. Had the PSNCO timely processed the promotion paperwork in June 1997 the applicant would have met the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to pay grade E-5 for 1 September 1997.

  • 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 | CY1997 | 9710522

    Original file (9710522.rtf) 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. 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY1995 | 9510648AC070209

    Original file (9510648AC070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his previous request to correct his promotion points worksheet (DA Form 3355) to reflect that he was awarded “200” promotion points by his commander and that he was awarded “46” promotion points for military education. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military...

  • 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.