RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           28 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006794


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings 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. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, a change to his master sergeant/E-8
(MSG/E-8) promotion effective date and date of rank.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that because he was deployed in Iraq
the processing of his security clearance was unjustly delayed, which caused
his promotion date to slide from 1 May 2003 to 20 June 2003.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, MSG/E-8 promotion
orders and a security clearance investigation summary in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  As of the date of his application to the Board, the applicant was
serving on active duty in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8.  He was
deployed to Iraq and serving as a tank company first sergeant (1SG).

2.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no
derogatory information or record of disciplinary action that would impact
his ability to obtain a security clearance.

3.  The applicant’s Enlisted Data Assignment System (EDAS) Soldier Record
confirms he holds a “Secret” security clearance that was based on a
favorable NAC completed on 29 October 2003.

4.  The applicant’s record reveals an outstanding evaluation history and
contains no derogatory information that would have precluded the award of a
favorable interim “Secret” clearance, or favorable National Agency Check
(NAC) on 1 May 2003.

5.  The record also shows the applicant was selected for promotion to MSG/E-
8 by the Calendar Year (CY) 2002 MSG Selection Board.  Department of the
Army authorized promotions through his sequence number on 1 May 2003.  The
applicant’s promotion was not authorized on 1 May 2003 because he did not
meet the security requirement necessary to be promoted on that date.
6.  On 20 June 2003, the applicant was granted an interim “Secret”
clearance, and Headquarters, United States Total Army Personnel Command
(PERSCOM) Orders Number 174-1 authorized his promotion to MSG/E-8,
effective and with a date of rank of 20 June 2003.

7.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the PERSCOM Deputy Chief, Promotions Branch.  This official
confirms the applicant was not promoted on his scheduled date of 1 May 2003
because he did not meet the regulatory security requirement of having a
favorable NAC, Local Agency Check (LAC) and Credit Check (NACLC), or a
security clearance of “Secret” or higher.  As a result, this PERSCOM
promotion official recommended that the applicant’s request be denied to
ensure a fair and equitable system for all Soldiers.

8.  On 29 October 2004, the applicant provided a rebuttal to the PERSCOM
advisory opinion.  He stated that he was in school in Little Rock, Arkansas
when the promotion list was published in April 2002.  He indicates he found
out he was scheduled to be promoted on 1 May 2003 after he had been
deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  At this time, he was also
informed that he did not have a current security clearance and could not be
promoted without one.  He further states that 14 months earlier, while he
was still assigned in Germany, he had submitted a security clearance packet
and was never informed of any problem with this packet.  He states that, in
his opinion, finding out about the security clearance problem after he was
deployed to Iraq was a failure of the system.  He claims that as soon as he
was made aware of the problem, he immediately acted to correct the
situation.  However, because he was deployed, there were no resources
immediately available to process the necessary security clearance request.


9.  The applicant further claims that it was not until late May 2003, that
he finally received help with his problem in Tikrit, Iraq.  At this time,
with the help of a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) unit, the 4th
Infantry Division G-2, and after persistent communication with III Corps
personnel at Fort Hood, he was finally granted an interim security
clearance on 20 June 2003.  He concludes by stating that it seems because
he was in an environment that did not have adequate technological
capabilities, he was at a distinct disadvantage in trying to resolve this
issue in a timely manner.  He further states that if another Soldier were
in a similar situation and were not deployed, this type of problem could be
resolved in a matter of days.  He requests that these extenuating
circumstances be considered and that his date of rank be adjusted to 1 May
2003.
10.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
prescribes the policy for enlisted promotions in the Army.  Paragraph 1-16
outlines security clearance requirements.  It states, in pertinent part,
that promotion to MSG and sergeant major requires a favorable NAC, LAC,
NACLC check, or a security clearance of secret or higher.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant did not satisfy the
security requirements necessary to be promoted to MSG/E-8 on 1 May 2003.
As a result, his promotion was appropriately delayed by PERSCOM in
accordance with the governing regulation.  However, there are equity
considerations in this case that deserve consideration.

2.  The evidence of record reveals the applicant’s outstanding record of
military service.  It also confirms that his OMPF was void of any
derogatory or unfavorable information that would have precluded him from
receiving an interim “Secret” security clearance prior to 1 May 2003, the
date he was scheduled to be promoted to MSG/E-8.  This is evidenced by the
favorable interim “Secret” clearance and NAC he received on 20 June 2003,
and the ultimate “Secret” security clearance he was issued based on the
final favorable NAC on
29 October 2003.

3.  The evidence appears to show that, rather than any significant failure
on the applicant’s part, his failure to meet the security requirements for
promotion on
1 May 2003 was the result of his being deployed away from the support
structure necessary to rectify the security issues involved.  Thus, it
appears he was unfairly punished for being deployed.

4.  In view of the facts of this case, it would serve the interest of
justice and equity to correct the applicant’s record to show he was granted
an interim “Secret” clearance on 30 April 2003.  Further, the record should
be corrected to show he was promoted to MSG/E-8 effective and with a date
of rank of 1 May 2003.  Finally, it would also be appropriate to provide
him any back pay and allowances due as a result of these corrections.
BOARD VOTE:

___PBF _  ___REB _  ___JI ___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
showing he was granted an interim “Secret” security clearance on 30 April
2003; that he was promoted to master sergeant/E-8 effective and with a date
of rank of 1 May 2003; and by providing him any back pay and allowances due
as a result of these corrections.




            ____John Infante______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006794                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/04/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.0700                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]