| Mr. | Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Fred N. Eichorn | Member | |
| Mr. | Robert W. Garrett | Member |
| Mr. | Karl F. Schneider | Acting Director | |
| Mr. | Jessie B. Strickland | Examiner |
2. The applicant requests that his date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be made retroactive to 1 December 1996.
3. The applicant states that the servicing personnel office miscalculated his promotion points which caused him not to be promoted when the cut-off score dropped below his actual promotion points on 1 December 1996. He goes on to state that he submitted a request for an exception to policy which was erroneously disapproved by the 1st Personnel Command (PERSCOM) in Germany.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he received a promotion points reevaluation in July 1996 which changed his promotion points from 639 to 635 promotion points. The reduction in his promotion points was based on 4 points being disallowed for military education courses deemed to be ineligible for points that had been previously awarded.
5. On 25 November 1996, the applicant submitted a request for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 December 1996, as an exception to policy based on erroneous calculations made to his promotion points worksheet. His request was disapproved by the 1st PERSCOM in Germany. The 1st PERSCOM indicated that the applicant had been erroneously credited with military education points that he was not entitled to receive.
6. The applicant, after having served 6 years, 11 months, and 9 days of active service, reenlisted on 30 January 1997 in the pay grade of E-5 for a period of 3 years.
7. On 6 June 1997 an inspector general (IG) inquiry determined that the 1st PERSCOM had incorrectly disallowed the applicant’s points for military education and advised the applicant to resubmit his request.
8. The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 October 1997 based on his meeting the promotion cut-off score of his adjusted promotion points.
9. In the processing of this application, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Promotions Branch. It opined, in effect, that the applicant’s promotion points were incorrectly removed and that had they not been removed he would have met the promotion cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1996.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s promotion points were incorrectly calculated and he was subsequently unjustly denied promotion points for military education that he was entitled to receive.
2. Consequently, the applicant was denied promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1996.
3. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s 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 the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 December 1996, with a DOR of 1 December 1996, and entitlement to all back pay and allowances from that date.
BOARD VOTE:
LS FE RWG GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067506C070402
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 | CY2001 | 2001065239C070421
An APFT scorecard reflects that on 15 November 1995, the applicant received a score of 61 points for a run time of 17:49. The applicant's APFT score should have been 259 instead of 234. The applicant's contention that his APFT bike score was incorrectly entered as a run score which lowered his total promotion point score, which resulted in his not meeting the 1 May 97 promotion cutoff score to staff sergeant, is supported by his records and the PERSCOM advisory opinion.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079665C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. In the processing of this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510648AC070209
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 | CY2002 | 2002071280C070402
On 30 June 1995, the effective date of the MOS conversion, the applicant was reclassified into MOS 31R20P7. The applicant met all these requirements at the time of the MOS conversion and should have been converted to MOS 31S with the ASI of Y2 at that time. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate at this time to correct the effective date of the applicant’s reclassification into MOS 31S to 30 June 1995.
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 | 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 | CY1997 | 9711836
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS : That the effective date and date of rank (DOR) of his promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be changed from 16 May 1996 to 1 February 1996. On 1 February 1996 the applicant submitted a request for an exception to policy for promotion prior to completing the BNCOC. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069531C070402
However, because the C-10 roster indicated the applicant attained list status in September 1998 he would not have been eligible for promotion, not only because he had not completed BNCOC, but because his name had not been on the promotion list for the required three months. The Board notes that the applicant was medically precluded from attending BNCOC as scheduled in April 1999 and ultimately completed the course in the winter of 2000 after being conditionally promoted in May 2000 when he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015853
Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that promotion orders are filed in the service section of the OMPF. However, a review of the applicants OMPF revealed that the orders that promoted the applicant to SSG with an effective date of 1 December 2007 are not filed in the applicants OMPF. The evidence of record shows these orders were erroneously published as the applicant was promoted to SSG effective and with a DOR of 1 December 2007.