IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100021279 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his date of promotion to staff sergeant (E-6) be changed from 1 May 2012 [sic] to 1 January 2010.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was recommended for promotion in November 2009
* officials in his battalion did not submit the promotion board results in a timely manner
* someone unknown left the vacancy list on his or her desk and failed to submit it through the proper channels
* he was eventually promoted to E-6 in the E-6 position he has been in for 4 years

3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 6 August 2010
* MapQuest driving directions
* a letter from his Representative in Congress, dated 21 June 2010
* a letter from Deputy Director, Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), to his Member of Congress, dated 10 June 2010
* email between his company commander and the 335th Signal Command (SIGCOM) Command Sergeant Major

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 26 November 2002, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the pay grade of E-1.  He was promoted through the ranks to sergeant/E-5 effective 15 September 2005.  He was assigned to the 89th Transportation Company at the time of his promotion to E-5.

2.  His DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report) for the periods 1 January through 31 December 2006 and 1 January through 31 December 2007 show he was assigned to the 342nd Chemical Company.  His principal duty title was Chemical Operation NCO.

3.  Headquarters, 88th Regional Readiness Command, Orders 07-111-00052 were published reassigning the applicant from the 1st Platoon to the 4th Platoon within the 342nd Chemical Company effective 23 April 2007.

4.  The applicant's DA Form 2122-8 for the period 1 January through 31 December 2008 shows he failed the Army Physical Fitness Test on 18 November 2008.

5.  Headquarters, 88th Regional Support Command (RSC), Orders 
10-116-00014 were published promoting the applicant to staff sergeant/E-6 effective 1 May 2010.

6.  On 10 June 2010 in response to a Congressional Inquiry, the applicant was notified through his Representative in Congress that he was recommended for promotion on 9 November 2009 by a Junior Promotion Board.  He was told that on 27 January 2010 the results of the board were forwarded to the 88th RSC for integration into the Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL).  The applicant was informed:

* Soldiers are promoted by the RSC in sequence off the PPRL
* as a vacancy is reported, the regional list manager will identify the first Soldier on the PPRL who meets the reported requirements with the military occupational specialty (MOS) and elected travel distance
* records indicate no vacancies were reported during December 2009 to April 2010 by the 472nd Chemical Battalion
* he elected to travel a maximum of 100 miles and there were no vacancies within his elected mileage
* he should increase his elected mileage to 200 miles



7.  The applicant submits a self-authored memorandum to the ABCMR stating he was recommended for promotion to E-6 in November 2009 and had to file two Congressional Inquiries before he received his promotion orders in January 2010.  He states the response he received as a result of the inquiry was that he was not promoted sooner because he had indicated he was willing to travel 100 miles for assignment, but there were no vacancies within that distance.  He states he has been serving in his current E-6 team leader position with his current unit since 2006.  He states that both Google Map and MapQuest show his home of record to be 95 miles from the 342nd Chemical Company.  He states that after further investigation, he discovered that the 472nd Chemical Battalion did not submit the board results in a timely manner and the 342nd Chemical Company vacancy list was not submitted with the results.  He states he received the same response from his second Congressional Inquiry as he did from his first.

8.  He also submits a map and directions from MapQuest showing the total mileage between his home of record and the 342nd Chemical Company is 95.2 miles.

9.  The email the applicant submits is between his company commander, the 335th SIGCOM command sergeant major, and the unit administrator.  In this email the company commander states that due to a rescinded policy pertaining to automatic promotions, all commands scrambled to determine who would control the junior NCO promotions, which fell on the RSC to maintain the Junior NCO PPRL and determine vacancy availability and validation.  The company commander states the promotion board results were not submitted in a timely manner.  He states that none of the vacancies since December 2009 were sent to the 88th RSC; thus, Soldiers selected for promotion in November either were promoted into other units with vacancies advertised or not at all.  The company commander verified that the applicant was in an E-6 position and qualified for promotion.   This email is dated 31 March 2010.

10.  In the email, the unit administrator states the USARC response to the Congressional Inquiry is not true because the applicant is sitting in a valid E-6 position.  He states that an increased mileage statement from the applicant was not needed due to the number of vacancies in the area.

11.  During the processing of the applicant's case an advisory opinion was obtained from USARC, Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 who recommends denial of the applicant's request.  He states:

* the applicant was recommended for promotion in November 2009 by a junior promotion board conducted at the 209th Regional Support Group (RSG)
* once recommended the information was integrated onto a PPRL maintained by the RSC
* during the timeframe of 9 November to 10 March 2010, the 209th RSG did not report any vacancies for fill matching the applicant's MOS and grade
* in April 2010, the 209th RSG submitted a vacancy matching the criteria used to promote the applicant effective 1 May 2010
* the applicant was not previously filling the position to which he was promoted, he was assigned to an E-5 position from 29 August 2007 until his promotion to E-6 on 1 May 2010
* the applicant was the next promotable Soldier on the PPRL at the time of his promotion
* there were no other Soldiers promoted in his specific position prior to the applicant's promotion effective date

12.  On 13 May 2011, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his information and/or possible rebuttal.  To date, there has been no response.

13.  Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction) prescribes policy and procedures governing the classification, advancement, promotion, reduction, and grade restoration of applicable USAR Soldiers.  Section III of chapter 3 prescribes policy and procedures for promotion to sergeant/E-5 and SSG/E-6.  It states that in order for a Soldier to be promoted to SSG he or she must be eligible for board consideration, his or her record must be reviewed by a properly-convened promotion board, a majority of the voting members must recommend him or her for promotion, and the Soldier must meet the minimum number of promotion points before he or she can be added to the PPRL.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted and his supporting documents have been considered.  The available records do not show he was in an E-6 position for 4 years as he contends.

2.  He was recommended for promotion on 9 November 2009.  On 27 January 2010, the results were forwarded to the RSC for integration into the PPRL.  Soldiers are promoted by the RSC in sequence off the PPRL based on MOS and elected travel distance.

3.  The applicant submitted no evidence showing he was not promoted in sequence.  The available evidence shows he was assigned in an E-5 position until an E-6 position became available for which he qualified and was subsequently assigned to on 1 May 2010.

4.  The applicant has not shown he should have been promoted any earlier than when he was promoted.  Therefore his request should be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ___X____  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      ____________X____________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021279



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021279



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1