PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           18 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11665
				   AR1999013061

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Gale Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 April 1997, with back pay from that date to the current date.

3.  The applicant states that the promotion office at Fort Benning found an error on his promotion point worksheet, showing that 13 points had not been awarded to him during a reevaluation, and that the additional points would have made him eligible for promotion to E-5 on 1 April 1997.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 13 January 1998, the promotion section at Fort Benning sent a memorandum to the applicant’s gaining Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) advising them that there had been a computation error on the applicant’s promotion point worksheet, and that the additional points would have given him a total of 585 points, thereby making him eligible for promotion to E-5 on 1 April 1997.  The applicant was in the process of clearing from Fort Benning, and they asked the gaining commander to do an exception to policy to promote him effective 1 April 1997.

5.  On 7 December 1998, the Commander, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) provided a calculation of the applicants promotion points (COPY ATTACHED) which revealed that there were several errors on the applicants promotion point worksheet.  They discovered that the applicant’s January 1997 reevaluation erroneously awarded him 4 points for unit level training, when no points are authorized for unit level training; that he was awarded 4 points for an 11 day course when he should have been awarded 2 points; and that they had omitted awarding him 10 points for civilian education improvement.  The applicant’s correct score was 579 points.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states that promotion points achieved through the reevaluation process are effective for promotion on the first day of the third month following the reevaluation.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  PERSCOM determined that the applicant’s correct total promotion score for his January 1997 reevaluation was 579 points, therefore beginning with 1 April 1997 (the first day of the third month following his reevaluation), he did not exceed the HQDA promotion point cutoff score until 1 June 1997.  

2.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as 
recommended below.

3.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

___tnk__  ___jpi__  ___jps_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11665/AR1998013061	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 131.05		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.