BOARD DATE:	  12 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130019159 


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 she be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 June 2011.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that on 26 April 2011 her unit S-1 specialist attempted to update her enlisted record brief (ERB) in order to update her promotion points and was unable to do so and escalated the problem to her supervisor.  Personnel officials were unable to have the information updated prior to the 15 May 2011 deadline and as a result she was unable to be promoted.  Had the data input been made on time she would have made the cut-off score of 559, as she would have had 561 points.  She appealed to the Inspector General, Judge Advocate General, her chain of command, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), and the G-1, all to no avail. 

3.  The applicant provides a listing of supporting documents submitted with her application as pages 5 and 6 of her application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 July 1999 for a period of 3 years, training as a medical specialist.  She completed her training and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 April 2005.

2.  On 26 April 2011, the applicant submitted documents to the Human Resources Division of her command in Hawaii to receive promotion points for her combat deployment to Kosovo.  However, because the applicant did not have her deployment orders, the promotions manager sent an inquiry (email) to the HRC promotions section to ascertain if the applicant’s award certificate would suffice.  HRC did not respond to the email so the applicant contacted HRC officials herself and determined that the awards certificate would suffice.  At that point the promotions manager made the input to the system; however, she incorrectly reflected the deployment as an operational instead of combat deployment.  Accordingly, she missed the cutoff score for promotion.  However, had the applicant’s points been properly input into the system, she would have had 561 points and the cutoff score for that month was 559 points.

3.  On 2 August 2011, the applicant’s commander submitted a memorandum to HRC approving an adjustment of her promotion points and promotion to the pay grade of E-6.

4.  On 22 August 2011, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions Branch of HRC denied the applicant’s request for an exception to policy indicating that the applicant’s data had not been properly entered in a timely manner prior to 15 May 2011.  HRC officials also indicated that although it was not a direct fault of the Soldier, the unit must take responsibility for the untimely input of data.  Additionally, no exceptions to policy would be warranted for such practices under the Semi-Centralized Promotion System.

5.  On 10 May 2013, the commanding general (CG) of the applicant’s command signed a recommendation for approval of the applicant’s request for an adjustment of her promotion points and promotion to the pay grade of E-6.

6.  On 20 September 2013, the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 disapproved the applicant’s request for promotion as an exception to policy.  G-1 officials stated that effective 1 June 2011, the active component transitioned to a fully-automated promotion point system designed to capture and calculate promotion scores based on information contained in a Soldier’s personnel and training records.  The officials further emphasized the following: 

* The unit S-1 is responsible for Personnel Information Management (PIM) in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-104 (both personnel and training data accuracy and timeliness)
* Data accuracy ensures promotion points are accurate and reflective of a Soldier’s actual achievements and accomplishments
* Each Soldier bears a personal responsibility to ensure their records are accurate and reflect all information necessary to compute accurate promotion scores 
* The S-1 Human Resource specialist and military personnel division (MPD) personnel bear responsibility to assist Soldiers in this matter
* Inaccurate promotion scores predicated on missing or inaccurate personnel and/or training information do not constitute a basis for promotion score adjustments for the purpose of changing previously announced promotions
* Corrections to either the personnel or training records affect scores moving forward not retroactively
* This process instills a disciplined approach with direct responsibility falling on the Commander, S-1 and the individual Soldier

7.  Officials at HRC go on to state that in order for the applicant’s automated score to accurately reflect her points, eMILPO had to be updated no later than  16 May 2011 in order to impact her 1 June 2011 promotion score and she was unable to do so until after 16 May 2011.

8.  Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 11-233 (Updates and Guidance for the Semi-Centralized Promotion System) issued on 28 July 2011 provides, in pertinent part, that effective 1 June 2011 exceptions to policy for promotion are no longer authorized.  It also provides that administrative records corrections that are based on failure on behalf of the Soldier, unit , S-1, MPD or promotion work center to update a Soldier’s record is not grounds for reconsideration under the Administrative Records Correction (ARC) process.
 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the regulations and guidance regarding retroactive promotions that were the result of administrative error are very clear, it should be noted that the errors in the applicant’s case occurred at a time when the Army was implementing a new automated promotions system. 

2.  The Army implemented the new system on 1 June 2011 and that would have been the date the applicant would have met the cut-off score for her military occupational specialty had the administrative errors not occurred.

3.  It should also be noted that the new system puts emphasis on the fact the Soldier has the responsibility to ensure that his or her records properly reflect their service; however, it appears there is no leeway or allowances made when the Soldier does what they are supposed to do, as did the applicant, and the support systems or chain of command which the applicant had to rely on do not accomplish their required tasks in a timely manner. 

4.  In the instant case, a new promotion system was implemented and as with any new system there was confusion and a sense of being overwhelmed, which is always going to result in mistakes being made.  While the Department has made it clear that the unit has to accept the responsibility in this case and the unit has accepted such responsibility in writing, doing so does not take away from the fact that the applicant did as she was supposed to do and has been penalized by not being promoted.

5.  Accepting responsibility for an administrative error does nothing to resolve the error or injustice which the individual Soldier has to bear and claiming that it will instill a disciplined approach holds no water when the Soldiers do what they are required to do and the support systems fail them.  Inevitably, the Soldier bears the burden of mistakes made by others in all cases because of the zero-defect policy regarding exceptions to policy and ARCs.

6.  The facts in this case clearly show that the applicant did as she was expected to do and the system, albeit a new system, failed her.  It also shows that her chain of command has accepted responsibility for the applicant’s failure to be promoted; however, the applicant has ultimately been the person to bear the burden of the administrative mistakes made in this case.

7.  Both error and injustice are present in this case and to deny her a promotion that she otherwise would have received does nothing to serve either equity or justice.

8.  Accordingly, as a matter of equity, she should be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 June 2011 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.     

BOARD VOTE:

__X___  ___X_____  ___X_____  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 all her promotion points were correctly input into the system in a timely manner and promoting her to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 June 2011 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances that flow from this action.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20130019159





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130019159



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1