PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:      11 March 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-05508

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr.	Robert W. Garrett		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Karl F. Schneider		Acting Director	
	Mr.	Jessie B. Strickland		Examiner	

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

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion to the pay grade of E-5 be changed from 7 February 1997 to 1 November 1996.

3.  The applicant states that he met the promotion cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 November 1996 and was not afforded the opportunity to attend the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) prior to meeting the cut-off score.  He further states that he was deployed in support of Operation Joint Endeavor at the time he met the cut-off score and due to mission requirements he could not be returned to Germany to attend PLDC.  He goes on to state that he was informed that an exception to policy could be granted to promote a soldier who had met the    cut-off score and notes that there were other soldiers in the same situation who also were not promoted; however, he subsequently discovered that other soldiers within the battalion were promoted even though they had not attended the required course.  In support of his application he submits a copy of the orders which promoted one of those soldiers.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that the applicant enlisted on 16 September 1992 for a period of 3 years and successfully completed his training as a military policeman. On 15 October 1996, while stationed in Germany, he was deployed with his unit to Hungary in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.

5.  On 1 November 1996 he met the promotion cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5.  On 2 December 1996 he was returned to Germany for what appears to be his attendance at the PLDC.

6.  He completed the PLDC on 7 February 1997 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on the same day.  The applicant exceeded the course standards and was graduated on the commandant’s list. 

7.  In support of his application he submits a copy of orders promoting another soldier and a copy of the approval from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) promoting that soldier in the same military occupational specialty as an exception to policy prior to completion of the PLDC. 
8.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM which opined that the applicable regulations require soldiers who after 1 October 1989, meet the promotion cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 and who are not graduates of the PLDC, to be promoted the date they successfully complete the PLDC.  It further opined that the applicant did not apply to the PERSCOM for an exception to policy for a waiver of the PLDC requirement and recommended that his request be denied.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 serves as the authority for enlisted promotions.  It states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 October 1989, soldiers who meet the promotion point cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5, will be required to be graduates of the PLDC in order to be promoted to the pay grade of E-5.  The regulation also provides a provision which allows soldiers to apply for an exception to policy for early promotion when attendance at the PLDC is not immediately available.  The exception provision provides that the soldier must complete the PLDC when afforded the opportunity to attend in order to retain the promotion.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant met the promotion cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 and was not a graduate of the PLDC.

2.  While the Board is aware of the fact that the applicant had not completed the requirement of being a graduate of the PLDC, the Board is also aware that the applicant was deployed on an operational mission and that the Department expects its soldiers to be concerned with the successful completion of such missions.

3.  Accordingly, it is inherent that the Department take the necessary steps to take care of its charges and make them aware that they can requests such exceptions to policies in order to allow promotions to take place on time and not disadvantage soldiers simply because they are doing what is expected of them. 

4.  The Board believes that it is not reasonable to expect that soldiers are routinely aware that they may requests exceptions to policy for promotions, especially when they are deployed in potentially hazardous situations.  Therefore, it is incumbent on the Department to make soldiers aware of such requirements and routinely assist them in obtaining their promotions in such situations in order to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as a result of their commitment to their duties.

5.  Therefore, notwithstanding the recommendations of the PERSCOM, the Board finds that the applicant was not adequately assisted or advised of his options to request a promotion as an exception to policy and that under the circumstances, should have been promoted prior to completion of the PLDC.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective 1 November 1996, with a DOR of 1 November 1996, and entitlement to all back pay and allowances.                 

BOARD VOTE:  

  LS      FE      RWG  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON