IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120018043 


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 her date of rank (DOR) for sergeant (SGT)/E-5 be adjusted to 1 June 2011. 

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  her DOR was postponed due to negligence of the 2291st U.S. Army Hospital (USAH) for not submitting her Troop Program Unit (TPU) to TPU transfer paperwork to the 7227th Medical Support Unit (MSU) in Missouri.

	b.  in August 2009, she was assigned to the 2291st USAH at Fort Sill, OK.  In December 2010, she submitted her promotion packet for SGT to her unit administrator.  On 8 January 2011, the 63rd Regional Readiness Command (RRC) Reserve Component Promotion Board recommended her for promotion on 13 January 2011.

	c.  according to Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), she was placed on the Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL) because there was no vacant military occupational specialty (MOS) 68K (medical laboratory specialist) SGT position to slot her against for promotion.

	d.  in August 2010, she notified her unit she was pregnant with a delivery due date of 18 February 2011.  She was given permission to attend Battle Training Assembly in Virginia so she could accompany her husband (Active Component Army Captain) to his Army school in Virginia with their two young children.  Upon receipt of her husband's permanent change of station orders to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, she began to look for a Reserve unit in Missouri that had a vacant MOS 68K SGT position so she could be promoted.  She found two units that had slots available and she contacted her home unit and requested transfer.

	e.  on 28 April 2011, she was emailed a TPU to TPU transfer packet along with a DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment).  On 3 May 2011, she submitted her TPU to TPU transfer packet to the 2291st USAH to transfer to the 7227th MSU in Missouri with an effective date of 1 June 2011.

	f.  she kept in contact with both the losing and gaining commands to see if her transfer had been signed by the 2291st USAH and forwarded to the 7227th MSU, but the 2291st USAH never processed her transfer paperwork which she had submitted to them on 3 May 2011. 

	g.  in August 2011, she checked the online 63rd PPRL and learned she was removed from the list in July 2011.  The note section of the PPRL stated that on 
11 July 2011 she was removed from the PPRL due to the unit's notification of her non-promotable status on 24 June 2011 with a suspense date of 10 July 2011 and Soldier/unit failed to respond by suspense date.  The 2291st USAH failed to notify her or the 63rd PPRL that she was on a temporary postpartum profile which was valid until 15 August 2011.  Her son was born on 15 February 2011.  She was never notified by the 63rd RRC or the 2291st USAH.  If the 2291st USAH had sent her profile to the 63rd RRC and/or transferred her, she would not have any issues with her DOR or promotion today.  

	h.  on 17 September 2011, she was notified by the 2291st USAH that she would be involuntarily mobilized to Fort Meade, Maryland as a backfill for the Public Health Command, Region North with the rank of specialist.  She reported to Fort Meade on 18 November 2011 while leaving her husband and family at Fort Leonard Wood.  Her mobilization expired on 18 November 2012.

	i.  due to negligence of the 2291st USARH not submitting her TPU to TPU paperwork to the 7227th MSU in Missouri, she was involuntarily mobilized and remained a specialist.  The 7227th MSU was later deployed in December 2011 to Kuwait which would have provided her with a deployment opportunity and the ability to be promoted into a vacant 68K SGT position.
 
	j.  while mobilized at Fort Meade, she was promoted to SGT on 1 March 2012 with a DOR of 1 March 2012. 	

3.  The applicant provides her promotion packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 11 February 2008 for a period of 8 years in pay grade E-4.  She completed her training and was awarded MOS 68K.    

2.  On 1 March 2012, she was promoted to sergeant.

3.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Management Division, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, NC.  The advisory official states:

	a.  in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 5-18, the names of Soldiers on the promotion recommended list will be integrated onto the PPRL.  The PPRLs are managed by the Regional Support Command (RSC) in which the Soldier resides.  Then as a vacancy is reported, the appropriate authority will identify the first Soldier on the list who meets the reported requirements.  Soldiers are selected for promotion from the PPRL based upon their MOS and elected travel distance from their home of record residence regardless of the unit they are currently assigned.

	b.  on 1 June 2011, the Army adopted a new promotion policy, which required all previously-recommended Soldiers to submit documentation verifying promotion point scores on a new scoring system to the servicing RSC.  All Soldiers on the PPRL without a new DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) are considered to be in a non-promotable status until the required information has been received from the Soldier's unit.

	c.  records indicate the applicant was recommended for promotion on 
13 January 2011.  At that time she lived in Oklahoma; therefore, the board results were submitted through the chain of command to the 63rd RSC, as the appropriate promotion authority for that geographic region, and integrated onto the PPRL to await identification of a vacant position.  On 1 June 2011, the applicant became non-promotable as a result of the change in promotion point score indicated above.  At no time did the 63rd RSC receive an updated 
DA Form 3355; therefore, no promotion was possible.

	d.  on 19 January 2012, the applicant was again recommended for promotion, but had changed her state of residence to Missouri; therefore, the board results were submitted through the chain of command to the 88th RSC as the appropriate promotion authority for that geographic region and integrated onto the PPRL to await identification of a vacant position.  On 10 February 2012, the 88th RSC identified a position within her MOS and elected travel distance and she was promoted effective 1 March 2012. 

	e.  based on the above, there is no evidence that the delay in her TPU to TPU reassignment caused a delay in her promotion.

4.  The advisory official recommends disapproval of the applicant's request to adjust her DOR.

5.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  The applicant did not respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests her DOR for SGT be adjusted to 1 June 2011.  

2.  She contends her DOR was delayed due to negligence of the 2291st USAH for not submitting her TPU to TPU transfer paperwork to the 7227th MSU in Missouri in May 2011.  However, there is no evidence that the delay in her TPU to TPU reassignment caused a delay in her promotion.

3.  The advisory official points out:

	a.  she lived in Oklahoma when she was recommended for promotion on 
13 January 2011 and the board results were submitted to the 63rd RSC, as the appropriate promotion authority for that geographic region, and integrated onto the PPRL to await identification of a vacant position.  

	b.  she became non-promotable on 1 June 2011 because the 63rd RSC did not receive an updated DA Form 3355 as required by the new promotion policy.

	c.  she was again recommended for promotion on 19 January 2012, but had changed her state of residence to Missouri.  The board results were submitted to the 88th RSC as the appropriate promotion authority for that geographic region and integrated onto the PPRL to await identification of a vacant position.  

	d.  on 10 February 2012, the 88th RSC identified a position within her MOS and elected travel distance and she was promoted effective 1 March 2012. 

4.  Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence on which 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)                                         AR20120018043





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120018043



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1