`
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 7 May 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000209
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, in effect, promotion to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 effective 1 August 2013 and all back pay due as a result.
2. The applicant states:
a. He returned to active duty after a 12-year break in service in the rank of specialist (SPC). He went to the promotion board in March of 2013 and received a promotable status. The required promotion points for his military occupational specialty (MOS) had been at 798 and the points finally dropped to 549 in August 2013; however, his S-1 was unable to add his points for the Primary Leadership Development course (now known as Warrior Leader Course (WLC)) he completed during his prior enlistment.
b. If his points for WLC were added, his promotion points would have been 576. He sought assistance from his chain of command concerning his WLC points from the time he became promotable. He was guided to seek help from the inspector Generals (IG) office. Due to IG involvement his proper points were added. His command submitted a request for an administrative records correction (ARC) review to the Army Human Resources Command (HRC).
c. HRC denied the request. The ARC was denied because the points were added too late to be reflected for the August cut-off scores. He has over 8 years time in service (TIS) and he cannot reenlist after his contract ends if he does not get promoted to sergeant (SGT). He has missed out on 1 year and 4 months of SGT pay.
3. The applicant provides:
* four promotion point worksheets (PPW) Unofficial Copy
* an HRC memorandum, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 August 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active Army (AA)
* a memorandum, subject: Request an Administrative Records Correction (ARC) for [Applicant], issued by Headquarters, 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion, dated 26 September 2013
* a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)
* a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* two copies of his Enlisted Records Brief (ERB)
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 21 May 2012, after a twelve year break in service, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army in the pay grade E-4. He completed PLDC on 28 May 1998, during his first enlistment. He is currently serving on active duty in MOS 35PKP (Cryptologic Linguist) in the rank of corporal (CPL).
2. He provided an unofficial copy of his PPW with an effective date of 4 July 2013 that shows his total promotion points as 506.
3. HRC memorandum, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 August 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active Army (AA), shows the cutoff score for MOS 35PKP in the primary zone was shown as 549.
4. He provides an unofficial copy of his PPW with an effective date of 21 August 2013 that shows his total promotion points as 586.
5. A memorandum, subject: Request an Administrative Records Correction (ARC) for [Applicant], issued by Headquarters, 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion, dated 26 September 2013 addressed to HRC shows his commander:
a. Requested an administrative records correction for the applicant for promotion to SGT with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 August 2013. He stated that he completed the WLC in May of 1998. He went to the battalion S-1 in late June 2013 to have the WLC added to his ERB. The S-1 had issues adding the WLC to his ERB because the course completion date was prior to his date of initial entry to military service (DIEMS). As a work around to provide him with promotion point credit, on 16 July 2013 the S-1 entered the transaction with a date prior to his DIEMS. Unfortunately, the transaction was not accepted into the PPW system in time for the August 2013 promotion cut-off and he was not selected for promotion.
b. He stated that he is currently eligible for promotion to SGT in the secondary zone. For July 2013s promotion cut-off scores his promotion point total was 506. This did not include the additional 80 points of credit for WLC he should have received for military education level (MEL) which would have brought his total promotion point total to 586. The cut-off scores for the rank of SGT for MOS 35PKP in the secondary zone for August was 549. The cutoff scores for the rank of SGT for MOS 35P in the secondary zone for September 2013 increased to 798. Octobers promotion cut-off remains at 798.
c. Due to his DIEMS being incorrectly entered on his record upon reenlistment and a delay of the PPW update in recording and adding the 80 points for WLC he was not promoted on 1 August 2013. He was an outstanding performer who had displayed the leadership skills and technical expertise expected from their junior noncommissioned officers.
6. He provided copies of two of his ERB's.
* his ERB, dated 6 August 2013, shows his promotion points as 506 effective July 2013
* his ERB, dated 11 September 2013, shows his promotion points as 586 effective August 2013
7. On 27 February 2015, an advisory opinion was received from the HRC HQDA Promotions Branch. After a review of his application, HRC determined that his request for correction of his military records should be disapproved.
a. Records available to the Junior Enlisted Promotions Section indicated his MEL and military education status codes (MES) were not updated to reflect him as a graduate of all required phases of the WLC until 21 August 2013.
b. In accordance with Military Personnel Message Number 11-233, failure on behalf of the Soldier, unit, S-1, military personnel division (MPD), or promotion work center to update a Soldier's record, integrate a Soldier into the promotion standing list, or failure to remove a flag is not grounds for reconsideration under the ARC process.
8. On 13 March 2015, he was provided a copy of the above advisory opinion and an opportunity to submit comments. He has not provided a response.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-1c states promotions to SGT and staff sergeant (SSG) are executed in a semi-centralized manner.
a. Field operations will handle board appearance, promotion point calculation, promotion list maintenance, and the final execution of the promotions occur in the field in a decentralized manner.
b. HQDA operations will handle promotion cutoff scores and the monthly SGT/SSG promotion selection by-name list, which are determined and announced monthly.
c. HQDA and HRC will determine the needs of the Army by grade and MOS.
d. A Soldier's total points are forwarded through the appropriate database, as determined by HRC, to the automated system. These points are consolidated into an Army-wide listing of eligible Soldiers by MOS maintained in the automated system. A determination is then made for each MOS as to what promotion point cutoff score would promote the desired number of Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army in a specific month. These decisions are based primarily upon budget constraints and individual MOS requirements.
e. The importance of accuracy and timeliness in submission of data to the database cannot be overemphasized. Only visible scores will be considered.
f. By using the standard promotion scoring forms with predetermined promotion point factors, Soldiers in pay grades SPC, corporal (CPL) and SGT generally can measure how well they qualify for promotion. They can set precise goals with a self-improvement training program to increase their potential for promotion.
10. MILPER Message Number 11-233, dated 28 July 2011, provided additional guidance for the semi-centralized promotion system, including:
* discontinuation of exceptions to policy (ETP's) for promotions
* introduction of the process and procedures for ARC
a. Effective 1 June 2011, ETP's for promotion are no longer authorized.
b. ARC was a new process aimed at achieving personnel/training data base accuracy used to establish SSG and SGT promotions effective 1 June 2011 and later. The promotion authority may submit a request for an ARC in cases that would previously require an ETP due to an unavoidable circumstance that is no fault of the Soldier, S-1, MPD, or promotions work center. The request must be fully justified, signed by the promotion authority, and submitted to HRC for approval. All supporting documentation specific to the request must be attached or the request will be returned without action.
c. Failure on behalf of the Soldier, unit, S-1, MPD, or promotion work center to update a Soldier's record, integrate a Soldier into the promotion standing list, or failure to remove a flag is not grounds for reconsideration under the ARC process.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. At the time HRC announced the promotion point cutoff scores for 1 August 2013, he met the time in service and time in grade requirements for the primary zone for SGT. The cutoff score for the primary zone was 549.
2. His PPW, dated 4 July 2013, shows his total promotion points as 506. His ERB, dated 6 August 2013, shows his total promotion points as 506.
3. HRC memorandum, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 August 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active Army (AA), shows the cutoff score for MOS 35PKP in the primary zone was shown as 549. Therefore, at the time the cutoff score for his MOS was established it appears he did not meet the cutoff score of 549.
4. His ERB, dated 11 September 2013, showed his promotion points as 586. His PPW's, dated 21 August 2013, showed his total promotion points as 586. These are dated after the cutoff score was established at 549.
5. According to HRC, his MEL and MES were not updated to reflect him as a graduate of all required phases of the Warrior Leader Course until
21 August 2013.
6. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, based on the facts of this case, it appears the failure to update his records was unavoidable due to an issue stemming from his break in service. Therefore, it would be appropriate to promote him to SGT/E-5, with a promotion effective date and DOR of 1 August 2013, and to provide him all back pay and allowances due as a result.
BOARD VOTE:
____X____ ____X____ ____X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, effective 1 August 2013, with a DOR of 1 August 2013, and by providing him all back pay and allowances due a result.
___________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) AR20150000209
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000209
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012279
He provided a memorandum from the 191st CSSB, dated 27 December 2012, subject: Promotion Board Proceedings for Promotion to SGT and SSG, recommending the applicant for promotion to SGT. HRC memorandum for U.S. Army Promotion Work Centers, dated 22 February 2013, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 March 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues, announcing promotion point cutoff scores for 1 March 2013. a. He provided a copy of his email to HRC, dated 3 June 2013,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011270
The applicant states, in effect: * he is a wounded warrior, serving at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) * he appeared before the SSG promotion board on 2 August 2012 and was recommended for promotion by the board with a total of 365 points * his points were inaccurately calculated, as the promotions clerk erroneously omitted 19 months of deployment service, equaling 38 points, and an additional 54 points from across other categories * after the August 2012 SSG promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000141
The applicant states, in effect, he went before a promotion board for SGT on 2 May 2013. a. Paragraph 5a states "Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the Administrative Records Corrections (ARC) process if he/he would have made the DA promotion point cutoff score, but was in a suspension of favorable action status and he/he was exonerated, the case was closed favorably, or a FLAG for adverse action was removed, provided the Soldier was otherwise qualified." While...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002288
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG) with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 June 2011. The message states, in part, Brigade/Battalion S-1 and Unit HR Specialists will assist Soldiers with updating their personnel records through the electronic Military Personnel Office (eMILPO) system and update training records through the S3/G3 Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATTRS) Representative. His request did not warrant a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014904
The applicant requests: * correction of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) to reflect the correct date and number of promotion points to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * retroactive promotion to SGT/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 June 2011 2. However, as of 1 May 2011, the applicant was recorded as having 562 promotion points. Therefore, he cannot be promoted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005721
He states: a. he turned in his promotion documents on 7 April 2011 assuming he had until the normal monthly deadline of 8 April 2011. b. he was not informed by S-1 that he had to have his record updated by 5 April 2011 for validation for the 1 May 2011 promotion board. b. the timeline for the DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) shutdown on 6 April 2011 was announced via MILPER (Military Personnel) Message 11-084, S-1 Net, and the Army Times. He contends he was not informed by the S-1...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005350
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to correct his record to show he was promoted to the rank/pay grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 July 2013 instead of 1 December 2013. The applicant states, in effect, on 2 May 2013, he appeared before the promotion board and was recommended for promotion to the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5. a. Paragraph 5a states "Soldiers may be eligible for a retroactive promotion under the ARC process...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016992
The applicant states at the time of his application he was in the medical evaluation board (MEB) process. The applicant provides: * U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), Fort Sam Houston, TX Memorandum for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 17 April 2013 * Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum for U.S. Army, Promotion Work Centers, dated 18 April 2013, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 May 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019159
BOARD DATE: 12 December 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019159 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016837
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140016837 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, he appeared before the promotion selection board in January 2014 and was informed by his first sergeant that awards were removed from his promotion points worksheet because orders were not on file in his official records to support the entries. The PPW submitted by the applicant with his application showing a points effective date of 29...