| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member | ||
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of sergeant (SGT) be backdated to 1 December 2001.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that a mathematical error on his promotion points worksheet (DA Form 3355) which deprived him of three points and the fact that his servicing Personnel Service Company (PSC) did not post his re-evaluation until 3 months after he requested re-evaluation resulted in his not being promoted on 1 December 2001.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He appeared before a promotion board and attained promotion list standing to the pay grade of E-5 in July 2000. He was credited with 435 points that went into effect in September 2000.
In October 2001, he requested a promotion point reevaluation which resulted in his being awarded 527 points. Those points went into effect in December 2001.
On 1 September 2002, the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-5.
In the processing of this application an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PESCOM) Promotions Branch which opined that all documents dated prior to 12 October 2001 were used to calculate his reevaluation and he should have received a score of 524 points, which did not meet or exceed the announced cut-off score for December 2001 in his military occupational specialty. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied. The opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date no response has been received by the staff of the Board.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures governing the promotion of enlisted personnel. It provides, in pertinent part, that only increases that are dated prior to the request for reevaluation will be used and the increase in scores will not become effective until the first day of the third month following reevaluation.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and finds them to be without merit. While the PSC did receive his reevaluation in October, the applicable regulation provides that promotion scores do not go into effect until the last day of the third month after the scores have been posted. Accordingly, his scores would not go into effect until December, just as they did.
3. Given the advisory opinion of the PERSCOM and the failure of the applicant to show evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no evidence to show that he was unjustly or erroneously denied promotion in December 2001.
4. 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
__hbo___ ___rjw __ ___wtm__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079665 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 315 | 131.0500/DOR |
| 2. | |
| 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 | CY1997 | 9711760
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Consequently, the applicant was denied promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1996.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059881C070421
She claims that her original promotion was determined to be erroneous by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) based on the fact that she was in a nonpromotable status. Subsequent to being evaluated by the MMRB, on 1 November 1999, the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG in MOS 31R. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was erroneously promoted to SSG, in MOS 31R, subsequent to the MMRB concluding that she could not perform duties in that MOS based on her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057517C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his application to show he was awarded 10 points for education improvement and promotion to the rank of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6), effective 1 July 2000. On 7July 1999, the applicant went before a promotion board and was awarded 751 promotion points. The Board concurs with the PERSCOM advisory opinion that the adjustment of the applicant’s promotion points from 751 to 741 and his being awarded 1 point for civilian education was...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002081223C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that his sequence number for promotion came up on 1 June 2002; however, he was not promoted because he had no security clearance on file and was not notified that a security clearance was required for him to be promoted. On 1 June 2002, promotions were made through the applicant's sequence number; however, he was not promoted because his records indicated that he did not have a security clearance. The applicant responded to the effect, that he was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018970
He provided: * A copy of the promotion board proceedings, dated June 2010 * A copy of the amended promotion board proceedings, dated May 2011 * A DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) * A noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) * A DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard) * Two DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) * Two DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * Army Training Transcript * Printout from the Army Training Requirements and...