RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         14 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050014470


      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. Eric N. Anderson              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard O. Murphy             |     |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, that the effective date and date of
rank (DOR) of her sergeant first class (SFC) promotion should be adjusted
to coincide with the promotion dates of the first 50 or 100 Soldiers
promoted from the Calendar Year 2003 (CY03), SFC, Reserve Component
Selection Board (RCSB); and that she should be provided all back pay and
allowances due as a result.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her promotion sequence number was 40
out of the 849 selected for promotion, and had she not been pending a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), she would have been promoted in August or
September 2003.  She also states that her MEB was not completed until
16 November 2004, when it decided she would be retained.  Her promotion was
authorized on the date the MEB decision was made, and she was not provided
retroactive pay or a DOR adjustment even through the delay in her promotion
was through no fault of her own.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  CY03 RCSB List Extract; Promotion Orders and Amendment; and
Medical Holding Detachment Assignment Orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that at the time of her application, she
was serving on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program as a
member of the United States Army Reserve (USAR), at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
Her record shows she was selected for promotion to SFC by the CY03 SFC RCSB
and was assigned a promotion sequence number of 40.

2.  Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, published Orders Number 344-
01 on 9 December 2004.  These orders authorized the applicant's promotion
to SFC, effective and with a DOR of 3 December 2004.  These orders were
amended by HRC-St. Louis Orders Number 351-01, dated 16 December 2004,
which amended the applicant's promotion effective date and DOR to
16 November 2004.

3.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the HRC-St. Louis, Director, Army Reserve Active Duty
Management Directorate.  This official recommended the applicant's request
be denied because she was not in a promotable status on 1 September 2003.
He stated that the applicant was ineligible for extension or reenlistment
due to her medical condition, which required her to undergo a MEB.  He
further states that the applicant was ultimately found unfit for duty by
the MEB; however, the United States Army Physical Disability Agency
(USAPDA) approved her continuation in an AGR status on 16 November 2004,
and she was promoted to SFC on that date.

4.  On 19 June 2006, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC-St. Louis
advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond, and she was
given
30 days to reply.  To date, she has failed to provide a response.

5.  A member of the Board staff also contacted the Chief, Enlisted
Promotions Branch, RC, HRC-St. Louis, and confirmed that the provisions of
Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) are now
applicable to RC Soldiers.  This official further confirmed that had the
applicant been promoted based on her sequence number, the effective date of
her promotion, and her date of rank would have been 1 September 2003.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
prescribes the Army's enlisted promotions and reductions policy applicable
to both active Army and USAR Soldiers.  Paragraph 1-20 contains guidance on
the promotions of Soldiers pending referral to a military occupational
specialty/medical retention board (MMRB), medical evaluation board (MEB),
or physical evaluation board (PEB).  It states, in pertinent part, that
Soldiers who are pending referral to an MMRB, MEB, or PEB will not be
denied promotion (if already promotable) on the basis of medical
disqualification if they are otherwise qualified for promotion.  It further
states that per the provisions of 10 USC 1372, Soldiers on a promotion list
at the time of retirement for disability will be retired for disability at
the promotion list grade.

7.  Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 1372 provides guidance on
the grade to which a member of the Armed Forces who is retired for physical
disability is entitled.  It states, in pertinent part, that unless entitled
to a higher grade under some other provisions of law, a member who is
retired by reason of physical disability is entitled to the permanent
regular or reserve grade to which he/she would have been promoted had it
not been for the physical disability for which he is retired and which was
found to exist as a result of a physical examination.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that the effective date and DOR of her SFC
promotion should be adjusted to coincide with the promotion dates of the
first
50 or 100 Soldiers promoted from the CY03, SFC, RCSB; and that she should
be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result was carefully
considered and found to have merit.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the reason used to delay the
applicant's promotion was that she was ineligible for reenlistment because
she was pending an MEB.  The intent of the governing law is to ensure no
member of the Armed Forces is denied promotion due to a physical
disability.  The governing Army regulation codifies this intent in
stipulating that a Soldier pending an MMRB, MEB, or PEB will not be denied
promotion if otherwise eligible.

3.  The evidence of record in this case confirms that the only basis for
denying the applicant's promotion was her medical condition, and that she
was otherwise eligible for promotion at the time she would have originally
been promoted based on her selection by the CY03 SFC RCSB.  Therefore, it
would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice to correct her
record to show she was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7
effective and with a date of rank of
1 September 2003.  It would also be appropriate to provide her all back pay
and allowances due as a result of this correction.

BOARD VOTE:

___ERN_  __RML __  __ROM _  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 she was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7, effective
and with a date of rank of 1 September 2003; and by providing her all back
pay and allowances due as a result.




                                  _____Eric N. Anderson ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050014470                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/09/14                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.0700                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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