MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 23 May 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002067506

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         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, that the effective date of her promotion and her date of rank (DOR) to sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) be changed to 1 September 2001.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there was an administrative error made by unit administrative personnel that resulted in her conditional promotion being delayed. Her social security number was mixed up with that of another soldier who was scheduled to be promoted the same day. This paperwork was sent back for correction and by the time it was corrected, the effective date of her promotion had been moved to 1 November 2001. She claims that unit administrative personnel admitted to the error, but explained that they could do nothing to fix it. In support of her application, she provides a copy of a promotion point worksheet (DA Form 3355), a conversation record and a memorandum from two unit personnel administrators, a promotion recommended list, and the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) memorandum announcing promotion cut-off scores for 1 September 2001.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

She is currently serving on active duty in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 and is assigned to the United States Army Recruiting Battalion, Tampa, Florida.

A DA Form 3335 on file pertaining to the applicant, dated 1 June 2000, confirms that she earned a total of 671 promotion points. This document was signed by the Military Personnel Division (MPD) representative on 4 May 2000.

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. It also verifies that the September 2001 promotion point cut-off score for the applicant’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was 350 points.

Statements provided by unit administrative personnel, provided by the applicant, indicate that the applicant’s promotion point worksheet had been misplaced during this period. In addition, one administrator states that the applicant was promoted two months after actually meeting the announced cut-off score for her MOS because the MPD failed to send the battalion a memorandum of notification that the applicant met the cut-off score for promotion. The administrator explains that by regulation, the MPD is responsible to notify the battalion of who should be promoted, but instead they have been notifying the MPD and they have to practically beg for promotion orders. 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.
In connection with the processing of this case, the Board requested and received an advisory opinion from the Chief, Promotions Branch, PERSCOM. It states that the applicant’s name appeared on the 1 September 2001 promotion selection by-name list. However, the applicant was not fully qualified for promotion because she did not meet the Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) requirement. The applicant met the NCOES requirement on 20 December 2001, and in accordance with the policy announced in Military Personnel (MILPER) message 01-108, the applicant was eligible for a conditional promotion at that time. However, the record contains no conditional promotion approval memorandum to substantiate that the applicant was recommended for a conditional promotion on 1 September 2001. The applicant was conditionally promoted on 1 November 2001. The Chief, Promotions Branch finally recommends that the applicant’s request to adjust her DOR and effective date of promotion from 1 November to 1 September 2001 should be denied.

On 11 April 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of the PERSCOM advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond to or rebut its contents. To date she has failed to reply.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes the Army’s enlisted promotion policy. Chapter 3 contains guidance on semi-centralized promotions to SGT/E-5 and staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6). It states, in pertinent part, that field grade units authorized a commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC) or above have promotion authority to the ranks of SGT/E-5 and SSG/E-6, but the promotion work center maintains the recommended lists and issues the orders. Field operations consist of board appearance, promotion point calculation and promotion list maintenance. The final executions of promotions occurs in the field in a decentralized manner. Department of the Army (DA) will determine and announce the monthly promotion cut-off score based on the needs of the Army and the monthly
by-name promotion selection list.

MILPER message 01-108 contains policy and procedural guidance on the conditional promotion of soldiers to the rank of SGT/E-5 who have not yet completed the NCOES requirement for promotion. It states, in pertinent part, that recommendations must be forwarded to the local Personnel Services Battalion (PSB) or MPD for approval and publication of promotion orders. The local PSB commander or MPD equivalent is the approval authority for conditional promotions to SGT/E-5.

---

MILPER message 01-108 further stipulates that the DOR and effective date of the conditional promotion will be the date the soldier was reflected on the monthly SGT/E-5 by-name promotion selection list. However, when recommendations are received after the projected promotion date as indicated in the by-name listing, the DOR and effective date will be the first day of the month following the recommendation. For example, a soldier is reflected on the monthly SGT/E-5 promotion selection by-name list on 1 May 2001, however, the solider has not completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) and is not recommended for conditional promotion until 21 May 2001, the DOR and effective date of the conditional promotion would be 1 June 2001.

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:

1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the delay in her conditional promotion to SGT/E-5 was a result of administrative error on the part of unit personnel administrators, and that her promotion effective date and DOR should be adjusted to 1 September 2001 accordingly. However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant met the promotion cut-off score for her MOS and was on the by-name promotion listing published by DA for 1 September 2001. However, the record is void of any conditional promotion recommendation from her unit commander or an approval by the responsible MPD official. The record does confirm that the applicant was conditionally promoted to SGT/E-5 on the first day of the month following the submission of her conditional promotion recommendation in accordance with the established conditional promotion policy.

3. The established Army policy for conditional promotions to SGT/E-5, contained in MILPER message 01-108, expressly grants the PSB commander or MPD equivalent the approval authority for conditional promotions to SGT/E-5. It also specifies that in cases when the recommendation from the unit commander is received after the announced by-name promotion listing, the conditional promotion effective date and DOR will be the first day of the month following the month in which the conditional promotion was recommended.

4. While the Board believes there may have been some mishandling of the applicant’s promotion packet, the evidence of record does confirm that her conditional promotion was accomplished in accordance with the applicable policy and that she was properly promoted on the first day of the month following the month in which her conditional promotion was recommended.

---

5. In the opinion of the Board, given the recommendation contained in the PERSCOM advisory opinion, the lack of supporting statements from the applicant’s unit commander or other responsible members of her chain of command confirming that she was recommended for a conditional promotion prior to 1 September 2001, and the vagueness of the supporting statements provided by unit personnel administrators, there is insufficient convincing evidence to support granting the requested relief.

6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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

___MDM_ ___LE___ __KYF__ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067506
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/23
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 21	102.0700
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.