2.  The applicant requests that he be promoted to Sergeant E-5 retroactive to     1 September 1997.

3.  In February 1997, the applicant was placed on the E-5 promotion recommendation list with a total of 570 points.

4.  On 2 May 1997, the applicant graduated from the Primary Leadership Development Course.  Completion of the course would give him 30 additional promotion points.  On 5 May 1997, the applicant provided the battalion personnel administrative center (PAC) a copy of his DA Form 1059, the Academic Evaluation Report (AER), to prove he completed the course.  At this point, the PAC should have forwarded the AER to the servicing Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) so the document and the points could officially be added to the applicant’s promotion packet.  The additional points would have been effective in 90 days, i.e., in August 1997. 

5.  When notice that the promotion point cut-off score for the applicant’s primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) of 46Q dropped to 583 came out in late August, the applicant assumed he would be getting promoted on 1 September 1997.  He called his PSB only to be told they did not have his promotion packet and he was not on their promotion roster.  The packet was found a few days later, but the AER was not in it.  He was still shown as having 570 points.   It was determined the PAC failed to forward the AER and had lost it.  To get the points added, he was told to resubmit the AER through his PAC.

6.  In September 1997, the applicant redid his promotion point worksheet; however, his points would now not be effective until December 1997.

7.  The applicant’s personnel sergeant verifies that he had submitted his PLDC AER to the PAC in May 1997.  His company commander confirms that he followed the procedures as he was told to and that the PAC told him the points for completing the course would be added to his promotion packet.  The applicant’s lieutenant colonel superior verified to his absolute satisfaction that the applicant had followed the guidance given him by PAC personnel and turned in his AER to that PAC to ensure his PLDC points would be added to his point total.

8.  When the applicant prepared this application on 4 June 1998, he was still an E-4.  This means that at some time after December 1997, when his new point total of 600 would have again become effective, the cutoff score for his PMOS rose above 600.

9.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command.  That office noted that the battalion personnel sergeant confirmed that the applicant had turned in his AER to his PAC.  However, it quotes a Military Personnel Message that states that documents dropped off at the BNS1 does not constitute a reevaluation.  Therefore, retroactive promotion actions for this reason are not authorized.  The opinion notes that “With our constantly changing personnel system it is ever so important for soldiers to be responsible for their own promotion packets.”

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant completed a leadership course for which he should have been awarded an additional 30 promotion points.

2.  The applicant turned in a copy of his AER showing he completed that course to his battalion PAC as instructed and as standard practice.  It was the PAC’s job to forward the document to the PSB so the points could be added to his promotion packet.  The PAC failed to do so.  That failure caused the applicant to not be promoted to E-5 on 1 September 1997.

3.  It is not reasonable to require our soldiers, especially our junior soldiers, to be totally responsible for their own personnel actions, to include their promotion packets.  The Army established the PAC system (in the past, the unit clerk system) to be the knowledgeable, competent link between the soldier and the Army’s personnel system.  If that system errs due to incompetence, inattention to detail or simply poor customer service, the individual soldier should not be made to pay for that error.

4.  In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the advisory opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below:

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that:

    a.  the promotion packet of the individual concerned was updated in May 1997 to add his PLDC AER and its associated 30 additional promotion points, raising his promotion point total to 600, effective August 1997;

     b.  the individual concerned was promoted to Sergeant E-5 on 1 September 1997, when the promotion point cutoff score for his PMOS dropped to 583, with an effective date of 1 September 1997; and

     c.  that any back pay due him from 1 September 1997 to the present for this promotion be paid to him.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                                                              
						    CHAIRPERSON