BOARD DATE:	  1 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018970 


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 correction of his records to show he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6, effective 1 January 2011.

2.  He states he attended the promotion board in June 2010 for SSG while stationed in Korea.  After careful review of the board proceedings, he noticed that the promotion clerk failed to add his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) score and weapons qualification score to the total points earned.  

3.  He adds that he worked to improve his scores in the APFT, weapons qualification, and military education.  He completed the maximum allowable points for military education by November 2010.  He also scored the maximum allowable points for his APFT and weapons qualification in that same month.  

4.  He contends he went to his battalion S-1 prior to departing Korea and explained the discrepancies on his DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) and provided their office with the necessary documents.  However, his points were not updated in the system. 

5.  Upon arrival at Fort Polk, LA, he went to his battalion S-1 section and inquired what he needed to do to get his promotion issues resolved.  The noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) stated he wanted a copy of the board proceedings from Korea before he would even consider making the corrections to his promotion board record.  

6.  He states that upon receipt of the board proceedings from Korea, the S-1, NCOIC pointed out discrepancies with the document and noted that the command sergeant major (CSM) who presided over the board was listed as an “invited guest” and that the proceedings were signed by an acting first sergeant (1SG) instead of the President of the Board.  As a result, he rendered the applicant’s promotion packet invalid. 

7.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) office and was instructed to have the board proceedings amended to reflect the correct data and signature.  The board proceedings were amended and he resubmitted the new document to his battalion S-1 NCOIC; however, he still refused to correct the applicant's records and promote him to SSG/E-6.  

8.  He contends that due to the incompetence of various personnel clerks involved with his promotion action, he has missed valuable time in grade and pay.  He will retire in the year 2013 and it would be a travesty and disgrace if he is forced to retire in the rank of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 when he should have been promoted to SSG/E-6 on 1 January 2011. 

9.  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 Resources System
* Three weapons qualification scorecards
* His Enlisted Record Brief (ERB)
* Copies of email transmissions

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  His record shows he had prior service from 1986 to 1989 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist).  After a break in service, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 May 1996 in the grade of specialist/E-4, and is currently serving on active duty in MOS 88M (Motor Transport Operator).

2.  He was issued a Permanent Physical Profile on 8 January 2005 for left knee osteoarthritis.  

3.  His record shows he was assigned to the 551st Transportation Company (Terminal Service), 498th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, Camp Carroll, Korea on 26 January 2010.  

4.  The DA Form 705 he provided shows he was administered two record APFTs and earned the following:


Date
Pushup Raw Score/Points
Situp Raw Score/Points
Alternate Event Points
Total Points
Promotion Point Score

5 May 2010
55/82
55/68
Go/75
225
16
22 November 2010
70/100
75/100
Go/100
300
50
5.  He also provided a DA Form 5790-R (Record Firing Scorecard – Scaled Target Alternate Course), dated 19 February 2010.  This document shows he had 34 total hits and earned 34 promotion points.

6.  On 2 June 2010, he appeared before the 498th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion Enlisted Promotion Board and he was recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6.  The promotion board proceedings list CSM EJ as an invited guest, and were signed by MWD who showed the title of CSM in his signature block.  

7.  The promotion board proceedings also show the applicant had a total of 
685 points.  This information is incorrect, as it did not include points earned from weapons qualification and the APFT.  His total points should have shown he had 750 promotion points.

8.  Section I (Assignment Information) of his ERB, dated 3 June 2010 shows his name was incorporated on the SGT/SSG promotion standing list with 685 promotion points instead of 750.

9.  He provided a copy of an NCOER for the period ending 19 December 2010.  This document shows he was assigned to the 551st Transportation Company (Terminal Service), 498th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, Camp Carroll, Korea.  Item c (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) of Part IV (Values/NCO Responsibilities) shows he passed his APFT on 22 November 2010 and he met the height and weight standards of Army Regulation 600-9.

10.  He provided a second DA Form 5790-R which shows he earned a firer’s qualification score of 38 on 15 November 2010.  This score awarded him 48 promotion points and a difference of 14 points from his previous score.  Also, the record APFT he was administered on 22 November 2010 granted him 50 promotion points for this category for a difference of 34 points.  The total difference earned was 48 promotion points.

11.  A copy of a request for reevaluation dated November 2010, in which the applicant would have requested an administrative reevaluation to add the 
48 promotion points, is not available for the Board’s review.

12.  The Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 January 2011 show in part that the cutoff score for promotion to SSG for MOS 88M in both the primary and secondary zones was 798 points. 

13.  On 19 January 2011, he was reassigned to the 41st Transportation Corps, Medium Truck Company, Fort Polk, LA.  

14.  Email transmissions between the applicant and the 498th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, S-1 NCOIC beginning 28 February 2011 show the following occurred:

* The applicant was sent the 2 June 2010 promotion board proceedings from Korea
* The board proceedings went to his brigade CSM at Fort Polk for review
* The brigade CSM determined the promotion board proceedings to be invalid because the president of the board was listed as an invited guest and the proceedings were signed by a first sergeant instead of a CSM or sergeant major (SGM)
* His promotion issue was elevated to the installation G-1 CSM and the Inspector General office
* He was instructed by the G-1 CSM to get the 2 June 2010 board of proceedings amended with the correct titles and signatures or that everyone who was promoted on that list would be reverted back to their previous grade of rank
* The amended promotion board proceedings were sent to the applicant 

15.  On 6 April 2011, a FLAG was initiated against the applicant, placing him in the Army Weight Control Program.  Accordingly, by regulation his name was removed from the promotion standing list. 

16.  On 20 May 2011, the board proceedings for the 498th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion Enlisted Promotion Board were amended to show CSM EJ as the President of the Board and were also signed by CSM SWC.  Although, now in a more proper format, the amended result still carried forward the incorrect 685 promotion point total rather than the 750 promotion points the applicant had as of June 2010.  

17.  On 8 September 2011, the flagging action on the applicant was removed.

18.  He provided an ERB with a Brief Date of 9 December 2011.  This document shows in Section I that his name had been removed from the promotion standing list. 

19.  During the processing of his case, an advisory opinion was requested from the Enlisted Promotion Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC).  The Chief of the Enlisted Promotion Branch opined that after review of the applicant’s case, it was determined he had not provided their office sufficient documentation to be promoted to SSG/E-6.

20.  It was also noted that the applicant validated a total of 685 promotion points on 1 June 2010 and this was consistent with the amended promotion board proceedings dated 20 May 2011.  After numerous administrative errors were corrected, the applicant still had the responsibility to validate his points within the Electronic Military Personnel Office (eMILPO) database.  

21.  The opinion also noted that the applicant requested that his promotion be back dated to January 2011; however, his current record shows he was flagged for failing to meet weight control standards and the Promotion Branch could not determine when the original weight control flag was initiated.  Paragraph 5-27 of Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states the promotion authority will direct the name of a Soldier be removed from the recommended list if the Soldier is enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program as prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9. 

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel.  

      a.  Paragraph 1-10 of this regulation lists conditions in which Soldiers are considered in a non-promotable status.  It states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers (specialist through master sergeant ) are non-promotable to a higher grade when the Soldier has incurred suspension of favorable personnel action (FLAG) under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions).

      b.  Paragraph 3–3 covers delay of promotion to SGT/E-5 and SSG/E-6 and states a Soldier’s promotion will be suspended when the promotion authority determines one of the following conditions exists:
   (1)  Probability exists that the Soldier was given promotion consideration
in error.

        (2)  Soldier was granted more administrative points than entitled to.  The promotion authority may promote, provided otherwise qualified, when the unchallenged total point score equals or exceeds the announced HQDA cutoff score and the Soldier’s name appears on the monthly SGT/SSG promotion selection by-name list.
   
   (3)  Soldier’s promotion packet was lost and must be reconstructed.
   
  		(4)  A determination is pending as to whether duplicate credit was awarded promotion points.  The promotion authority may promote when the unchallenged points equals or exceeds an announced HQDA cutoff score.  However, if the promotion authority suspects that there may have been fraud, he or she may hold the promotion in abeyance until the issue is resolved.  A Soldier must be advised, in writing, by the servicing promotion section of the need to verify the challenged points.
	
      c.  Paragraph 3-13 outlines the requirements for conducting the SGT/SSG promotion board.  It states, in part, the promotion board will be conducted by the 15th of every month.  The promotion authority will appoint, in writing, an odd number (at least three) of unbiased voting members and a recorder without vote.  If the board members are all NCOs, the president must be a CSM or SGM.  The recorder will complete a DA Form 3357 (Board Recommendation) and obtain the president’s signature within 1 duty day following adjournment of the board.  The recorder will complete applicable portions of the DA Form 3355.  

	d.  Paragraph 3-15 states the memorandum of board proceedings will be prepared within 1 duty day of the board’s adjournment and include where and when the board was conducted; membership of the board; and an alphabetical list of recommended Soldiers by recommended grade, including SSN, recommended MOS, and administrative board points and total points for list integration.  The president of the board will review the memorandum of board proceedings for accuracy, sign the report, and forward it to the promotion authority.  The promotion authority (officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel/LTC or colonel/COL) will approve or disapprove the report in its entirety and forward the completed results to the servicing promotions section not later than the 20th of each month.  

   e.  Paragraph 3-18 covers the rules for processing promotion point reevaluations.  An administrative reevaluation will include the following:

        (1)  Soldiers who believe they have increased (through self achievement or awards) their latest promotion score by 20 points or more (DA Form 3355, Section A, item 1, and Section B) may request an administrative reevaluation at any time.  Soldier must be in a promotable status.

        (2)  Commander will sign a memorandum recommending approval or disapproval.  Additionally the commander may increase or decrease the duty performance points. 
   
        (3)  Prior to adding new promotion points based on an administrative reevaluation, the battalion/brigade promotion clerk will complete a total review of the DA Form 3355 and increase or decrease the military training and duty performance points, if applicable, and remove erroneous and outdated points.  The adjusted score will be the score that the Soldier must use to add the new points to.  The servicing promotion section will evaluate the new promotion points and those on the most recent DA Form 3355. 
   
       (4)  If the administrative reevaluation results in a promotion point increase of 20 or more points over the adjusted score, the servicing promotion section will change the Soldier’s score and enter the Soldier’s new score on the current 
DA Form 3355 and in the appropriate database.  Each new entry will be annotated with the reevaluation date.

       (5)  The date the reevaluation occurs is the effective month for the adjusted promotion points.  Promotion scores achieved through the reevaluation process are effective for promotion on the first day of the second month following the date the new score is entered into the automated system.  A Soldier will not be removed from the current promotion standing list when a decision to pursue a total reevaluation is made.  The Soldier remains competitive for promotion using the existing promotion score until the new score is effective.
   
      (6)  Gaining commanders of in transit Soldiers may elect to award duty performance points or use the previous commander’s evaluation.
   
      (7)  The servicing promotion section will provide the Soldier with a copy of the completed action (DA Form 3355) and computer-generated report reflecting the new score and date.

     f.  Paragraph 3-34 provides guidance for preparing the promotion packet for transfer at permanent change of station (PCS) for Out-Processing.  It states the promotion packet is designated as a transfer document which moves with the Soldier upon PCS.  If the Soldier’s verified current promotion points are not reflected on the recommended list during the month of PCS, the promotion work center/battalion or brigade S-1 will immediately post to the automated system.  A copy of the promotion point update screen will be placed in the Soldier’s promotion packet.  If the promotion work center cannot post the promotion points to the automated system, a statement will be issued by the promotions work center to verify the Soldier holds valid list status and will include the total promotion points and points date.  

	g.  Paragraph 3-36 states that during in-processing at the new duty station, the officer in charge of promotions will determine whether the Soldier qualifies for promotion or will be added to the recommended list.  If otherwise qualified, Soldiers on the recommended list who meet a promotion point cutoff score while in transit will be promoted during in-processing.  Recommended List status must be verified.  Verification requires a promotion packet by-name list and cutoff scores.  When the month of promotion is later than that in which the Soldier first qualified and delay is solely due to being in transit, the date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion will be the date the promotion would have occurred had the Soldier not been in an in-transit status.  

   h.  Paragraph 3-38 provides instructions for processing the promotion packet at in-processing at the battalion or brigade S-1.  It states the gaining command must take prompt action to request missing documents from the Soldier’s former command.  If the promotion packet cannot be obtained, but promotion board proceedings or the original initial DA Form 3355 signed by the promotion authority is available and the Soldier’s losing command can verify recommended list status, then the battalion or brigade S-1 may reconstruct the Soldier’s promotion packet and integrate the Soldier onto the list.  Soldiers whose promotion packet was lost and cannot be reconstructed within 90 days of arrival in command must appear before a promotion board to gain valid recommended list status.  

   i.  Section XVIII contains information for awarding administrative points.  Table 3-19 (Weapons Qualification) shows, in part, 38 hits using a DA Form 5790-R equals 48 promotion points.  It also shows a Soldier will be granted 
34 promotion points for achieving 34 hits.
   
   j.  Section XVII also provides rules for applying promotion points to the APFT score.  It states for Soldiers on permanent profile, taking an alternate event for the 2–mile run and receiving a passing score receive a score for that event equal to the average of the scores for the other two events.  Table 3-20 shows, in part, that a score of 300 is equal to 50 promotion points and a score of 225 is equal to 16 points.  

   k.  Paragraph 3–43 covers awards, decorations, and achievements (permanent awards).  It states to multiply the number of points authorized by the number of awards received.
   
  	l.  Paragraph 3–44, Military education, states promotion points will be awarded based on the following criteria:

   (1)  Noncommissioned Officer Education System Course.  Completion of 
Warrior Leader Course merits 16 points. 

   (2)  All other military resident training courses earned 4 points per week or
4 points for each 40 hours of training are awarded.  Refer to the Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) for AC schools duration and for resident and nonresident NCO Courses.

        (3)  Military correspondence courses and computer-based training (e-learning courses).  For each 5 credit hours completed, 1 promotion point is awarded.  This includes nonresident courses.  To determine promotion points, total the credit hours completed then divide by 5. The result is the number of promotion points to be awarded; fractions will be dropped.  Course completion with credit hours must be reflected in ATRRS prior to awarding promotion points.

   m.  Paragraph 3–45 provides instructions for awarding promotion points based on civilian education.  It states promotion points are authorized for civilian education conducted at a U.S. Department of Education recognized nationally or regionally accredited institution.  For the purpose of awarding promotion points, all college credits must be converted to semester hours.  For each semester hour of college credit, 1.5 promotion points are awarded.  The servicing promotion section will total the number of semester hours of college credit earned or converted, then multiply by 1.5.  When the total promotion points result in a fraction, the fraction is dropped.
   
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he should have been promoted to the grade of SSG/E-6 effective 1 January 2011; however, based on the incompetence of various promotion personnel he was not promoted and has suffered a financial loss.

2.  He states he requested a promotion point reevaluation in November 2010, but despite his efforts to complete this task, the 48 points he earned as a result of increasing his weapons qualification score and APFT were never updated in the system.  
3.  By regulation, the losing command had the responsibility to ensure that the promotion board was conducted in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 600-8-19.  The evidence shows that numerous errors occurred in conjunction with the 2 June 2010 promotion board.  

4.  The president of the promotion board must be in the grade of CSM or SGM, and must sign the board proceedings.  In this case, the president of the board was listed as an invited guest and the proceedings were signed by a 1SG, acting as the CSM, thus rendering the proceedings invalid.  The promotion authority had the responsibility to ensure the proceedings were correct before forwarding to the servicing promotion section for integration on the promotion standing list.  

5.  It is apparent that the promotion authority relied on his senior NCOs and battalion S-1 personnel to ensure the accuracy of the board proceedings and promotion packets.  It does not appear that the promotion clerk purposely miscalculated the scores of the Soldiers who went before the 2 June 2010 promotion board; however, lack of knowledge on the clerk’s behalf and lack of proper supervision/verification on the part of the senior leaders in the losing command caused the applicant to be integrated on the promotion standing list with the incorrect amount of promotion points and invalid board proceeding.   

6.  The ABCMR did a thorough review of the applicant's available record and found that after attending the June 2010 promotion board, the applicant should have been integrated on the promotion list with 750 promotion points instead of the 685 points shown on the ERB dated June 2010.

7.  He provided copies of a DA Form 705 and DA Form 5790-R, which show he raised his scores in both areas which totaled 48 additional promotion points.  

8.  Careful consideration has been given to the evidence he provided and the evidence contained in the available record.  However, other than his contention that he attempted to add the 48 points by means of a promotion point reevaluation, he has not provided sufficient evidence, such as a validated DA Form 3355 or an automated printout, dated November 2010 which shows his attempts to add and validate these points in the system.  

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to grant the requested relief.  



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 that 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)                                         AR20110018970





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018970



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1