| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his date of rank to staff sergeant (E-6) be adjusted retroactive to 1 April 1991. He states that he might have been eligible for subsequent promotions earlier based on an earlier promotion to staff sergeant. He states that only since starting work in the Personnel Service Battalion did he become aware that he had the right to appeal the 1991 denial of the change of his promotion date.
3. The applicant entered active duty on 10 August 1983 and has continuous active service since that time. The applicant was a sergeant (E-5) at the time of action in question. He has subsequently been promoted to staff sergeant (E-6), effective 1 August 1991, and to sergeant first class (E-7), effective 1 September 1998.
4. The promotion point cut-off score for the applicant’s primary military occupational specialty (PMOS), as published, was 553. Completion of the Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course (BNCOC) gave the applicant an additional 30 promotion points to his previous score to put his total at 564.
5. In December 1990, the applicant had completed BNCOC and received his Academic Evaluation Report (AER) in January 1991. Upon receipt of the report he consulted with his Personnel Administrative Center and requested that his promotion points be adjusted. At this point, the Personnel Administrative Center (PAC) should have forwarded the AER to the servicing Personnel Service Battalion so the document and the points could officially be added to the applicant’s promotion packet.
6. In a memorandum to Headquarters, 51st Signal Battalion, dated 2 May 1991, the PAC requested that the applicant receive a retroactive promotion due to extenuating circumstances. The PAC officials indicated that, at the time that the applicant brought his request to them, they had just completed an operational jump and the majority of their equipment and records were still in crates. The PAC detached a staff member to assist the applicant in getting to the unit's servicing Personnel Service Company, the 261st Personnel Service Company, in Heilbronn, Germany.
7. The applicant received and completed the necessary paperwork and returned it to the PAC for the proper signatures. The PAC officials reports that they contacted the Personnel Service Battalion and were advised that they could either give the reevaluations to his Personnel Service Company or mail it to the Rear Detachment Commander for turn-in at the rear Personnel Service Company.
8. The forms were completed in January 1991 and mailed per instructions to the Rear Detachment Commander. The Rear Detachment Commander received the packet on 4 March 1991. The PAC officials report that the applicant had met the cutoff score for promotion for April 1991. It was their belief that the applicant would be promoted effective 1 April 1991.
9. The PAC was advised that the packet was not received by the Personnel Service Company in time for the April 1991 promotion consideration. The delay was due to the PAC being misinformed about sending the packet to the Rear Commander not to the Personnel Service Company. The PAC stated that when they inquired about a retroactive entitlement, they were informally notified that as the applicant's request was received after the cutoff date and there were no exceptions to the effective date for readjustment of points, no relief could be granted. Based on this notification, the PAC submitted a formal request via Headquarters, 51st Signal Battalion for consideration of a retroactive reevaluation and promotion.
10. On 4 June 1991, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch, US Total Army Personnel Command, responded with a disapproval of the request for reevaluation and promotion. He stated that there are no procedures for waivers and no exceptions granted due to standardization to eliminate retroactive promotions that were neither projected for nor budgeted.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant completed BNCOC for which he was awarded additional promotion points that qualified him for promotion in April 1991.
2. The applicant turned in a copy of his AER showing he completed that course to his battalion PAC as instructed and as is standard practice. It was the PAC’s job to properly forward the document to the Personnel Service Company so the points could be added to his promotion packet. The PAC did so; however, due to their deployment and slow mail, the notice did not get to the Rear Detachment Commander until 4 March 1991. That delay caused the applicant to not be promoted to E-6 on 1 April 1991.
3. It is not reasonable to require soldiers to be totally responsible for the processing of their own personnel actions. The Army established the PAC system to be the knowledgeable, competent link between the soldier and the Army’s personnel system. If that system errs due to misinformation or operational commitments, the individual soldier should not be made to pay for that error.
4. The Board understands that to routinely grant exceptions to policy on the deadlines for submission for promotion considerations creates an unmanageable system. However, exceptions based on unique situations must be considered.
5. Both the applicant and the PAC believed that they had properly handled the additional information submission. The PAC was in a unique situation and unable to perform its function properly as it noted in its 2 May 1991 Memorandum.
6. Therefore, the Board concludes that an exception to policy should be made and the applicant be shown to have been promoted to staff sergeant effective 1 April 1991.
7. In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice 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:
a. showing that the individual concerned was promoted to staff sergeant (E-6) on 1 April 1991;
b. paying him any back pay due him from 1 April 1991 to the present;
c. determining if, based on this earlier promotion, he would have been eligible for an earlier consideration for subsequent promotions; and,
e. if appropriate, referring his file to a standby advisory board for consideration.
BOARD VOTE:
__aao___ __ksh___ __tl______ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_ Arthur A. Omartian_______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002066580 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020730 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.04 |
| 2. | 131.05 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508802C070209
The applicant states that he submitted a request for promotion point revaluation (DA Form 3355-E) to his personnel administrative center (PAC) on 3 November 1994 to increase his promotion point total from 736 to 764. The applicant requested that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) grant an exception to policy and that he be promoted to Staff Sergeant. Notwithstanding the PERSCOM opinion, the applicants reevaluated promotion point score of 764 should have been received and processed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605407C070209
The clerk stated that if the documents had been submitted on time the applicant would have been promoted in May. The applicant submitted a request for exception to policy on 25 April 1995, requesting that he be promoted on 1 May 1995 because of the circumstances concerning his documents for reevaluation of his promotion points. On 3 November 1995 an official of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Promotions Branch acknowledged the negligence involved in the processing of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508222C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests retroactive promotion to Staff Sergeant, pay grade E-6 effective 1 January 1994. APPLICANT STATES: He states, in effect, that his southwest Asia service, worth four promotion points, was overlooked by the promotion NCO upon his initial promotion point computation in November 1992, and because these points were not awarded, he did not meet the cutoff score for promotion in February 1993, and was not promoted in January 1994, immediately after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066582C070402
This office recommended that the applicant’s request to adjust his date of rank and effective date for promotion to SSG from 7 September 2000 to 1 June 1999, be denied. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: The applicant was conditionally promoted to the rank of SSG/pay grade E-6 with a date of rank and effective date...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507717C070209
In accordance with a military personnel message (MILPER Message Number 92-247) of 22 July 1992, effective 1 October 1992 soldiers are required to be graduates of BNCOC in order to be promoted to pay grade E-6. Soldiers who meet a cutoff score on or after 1 October 1992 will be promoted the first day of the month following completion of BNCOC. Requests are to be submitted prior to the soldier being promoted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014904
The applicant requests: * correction of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) to reflect the correct date and number of promotion points to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * retroactive promotion to SGT/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 June 2011 2. However, as of 1 May 2011, the applicant was recorded as having 562 promotion points. Therefore, he cannot be promoted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099918C070208
"; i. that on 30 September 2001, his [the applicant's] unit was activated under the provisions of Title 10 United States Code and that the AGR position held by Sergeant G was nullified; j. that another staff sergeant was promoted to sergeant first class/pay grade E-7 to replace the retiring sergeant first class and that this promotion created an available staff sergeant squad leader position in his unit; k. that there was a second staff sergeant/pay grade E-6 squad leader position available...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011168
The applicant provides copies of support letters from his former first sergeant and command sergeant major; and a "reconstructed" promotion packet. The applicant "reconstructed" a promotion packet with support documents showing that he had earned 728 promotion points as of March 1997. There is no evidence that the applicant was still on a promotion recommended list during the period from March 1997 to his discharge on 19 July 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508806C070209
The applicant states that two other soldiers received an exception to policy, one because he did not have a seat for the May 1993 class; and the other after attending the May 1993 class, because he was not afforded the opportunity to attend BNCOC prior to the effective date of his promotion. On 17 November 1992 the applicants commanding officer requested an exception to the policy linking completion of BNCOC to promotion in order for the applicant to be promoted to pay grade E-6. On 16...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007884
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show he was considered and selected for promotion to the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 with retroactive retirement in that grade. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he was considered and selected for promotion to SFC/E-7 and to retroactively retire him in that grade because his diploma for completion of BNCOC was not filed in his OMPF. The available evidence of record...