RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016625


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John M. Moeller               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his date of rank to Staff
Sergeant (SSG), E-6, be adjusted to 1 April 2001.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have been promoted to
SSG on 1 April 2001, not on 1 September 2003.

3.  The applicant provides a memorandum dated 20 June 2000; three
memorandums dated 10, 11, and 11 July 2001; a DA Form 200 (Transmittal
Record); a DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet); two promotion points
calculations memorandums dated 12 September 2000 and 10 October 2002; an
email dated 10 May 2004; an email dated 15 September 2004; three printouts
from the Enlisted Distribution Assignment System (EDAS) (two promotion
point update forms and one help screen form); and a printout from the Semi-
Centralized Database.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant has served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1986.  He was
promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 1 January 1991.  He was recommended for
promotion to SSG in March 1994 and placed on a standing promotion list.

3.  The applicant was apparently flagged on an unknown date for an unknown
reason.

4.  In a 10 July 2001 memorandum to the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command
(PERSCOM), the applicant's company commander recommended approval of a
request to promote the applicant to SSG effective 1 April 2001 as an
exception to policy.  The commander stated the applicant had been
erroneously coded in EDAS with a "9X" reenlistment prohibition code.  In an
attempt to update the system, Enlisted Promotions section mistakenly
removed the applicant from the standing promotion list by entering an "L"
code.  The commander further stated a "C" code should have been entered,
which would have shown the applicant was under suspension of favorable
personnel actions.

5.  The applicant's commander stated it was determined the applicant met
the     1 April 2001 cut-off score for his military occupational specialty
(MOS) and would have been promoted to SSG if he had not been inadvertently
removed from the standing promotion list.

6.  The applicant provided an email dated 10 May 2004 which indicated
PERSCOM disapproved the request for exception to policy on 17 September
2001.

7.  The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 September 2003.

8.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Promotions Branch, U. S. Army Human Resources Command (formerly
PERSCOM).  That office recommended disapproval of the applicant's request.
It noted the applicant was removed from the by-name [promotion] list for
April 2001 based on his records being coded to reflect he was non-
promotable.  His request for an exception to policy was disapproved because
he was not eligible for promotion on 1 April 2001.

9.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states,
in pertinent part, that being flagged places a Soldier in a non-promotable
status.  If the Soldier's final report is closed "Favorable" (completely
exonerated of all wrongdoing), and if otherwise qualified, he or she will
be promoted with an effective date and date of rank as that of his or her
peers.  If the Soldier's final report is closed "Unfavorable," and he or
she would have been promoted while the suspension of favorable personnel
actions was in effect, provided otherwise qualified, he or she will be
promoted unless action has been initiated to remove the Soldier from the
recommended list.  Effective date and date of rank will be the date
following the removal of the suspension of personnel actions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In his 10 July 2001 memorandum, the applicant's company commander
stated the applicant had been erroneously coded in EDAS with a "9X"
reenlistment prohibition code and mistakenly removed from the standing
promotion list by entering an "L" code.  The commander further stated a "C"
code should have been entered, which would have shown the applicant was
under suspension of favorable personnel actions.

2.  The commander then stated it was determined the applicant met the 1
April 2001 cut-off score for his MOS and would have been promoted to SSG if
he had not been inadvertently removed from the standing promotion list.  To
the contrary, the commander acknowledged the applicant was flagged and
should have been coded as being flagged.  Being flagged would have placed
the applicant in a non-promotable status.
3.  The applicant provides no evidence to show what happened to that
flagging action.  Unless he can provide evidence to show when that flagging
action was closed and under what resolution it was closed, it cannot be
determined when/if he should have been promoted to SSG sooner than 1
September 2003.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hof___  __cak___  __jmm___  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.




                                  ____Hubert O. Fry_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016625                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060228                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.05                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]