PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:  29 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027844

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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, in effect, that she be reconsidered for promotion to 
E-6 and E-7.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that three of her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) that contained error and injustice, were not completely corrected in her military record until 3 June 1999.  In the mean time, she was considered by E-6 promotion boards whose decision to not select her for promotion was affected by the erroneous NCOERs in her record.  She feels that if selected for promotion to E-6, she should be promoted with an effective date of November 1990 when she should have been promoted.  She further states that she should also be considered for promotion to E-7 since she was unjustly denied promotion to E-6 and therefore denied a timely consideration for promotion to E-7.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that, she, an E-5 Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) noncommissioned officer, appealed three NCOERs due to errors and injustice contained on the reports.  The NCOERs in question were for the periods of 9010-9109, 9110-9208, and 9309-9402.  The applicant began appealing these NCOERs on 24 June 1997 with an appeal to U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center NCOER Appeals Branch.  Some corrections were made by the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army Special Review Board between 27 January 1998 and 7 July 1999.  
She than applied to this Board for further corrective action which was granted on 
3 June 1999.  She was selected for promotion to E-6 by the CY99 promotion board and was promoted to E-6 effective 1 October 1999 by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, TAPC-MSL-E, orders 264-62, dated 21 September 1999.

5.  The applicant was eligible to be considered for promotion to E-6 by the CY90 promotion board but was not considered until the CY92 board.  The applicant entered the service on 21 August 1980.  Her date of rank for E-5 is 1 November 1988.  According to Army Regulation (AR) 600-200 (now AR 600-8-19) concerning enlisted promotion, she was eligible for consideration for promotion to E-6 after 
10 months Time In Grade (TIG) as an E-5, which would have been 1 October 1989, and after 84 months (7 years) Time In Service (TIS).  She entered AGR status in November 1989 and so should have been considered for promotion by the CY90 E-6 promotion board.  Had she been properly considered by the CY90 E-6 promotion board, she would not have had any of the questionable NCOERs in her file for the promotion board to see and she may have been selected from promotion to E-6.  When she was first considered for promotion to E-6 by the CY92 board, the first of the questionable NCOERs was in her file and could have contributed to her non-selection.  In succeeding years, the other questionable NCOERs were in her file, which could have further contributed to her non-selection.  It is noted that as soon as the questionable NCOERs were removed, she was selected for promotion to E-6. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was promoted to E-6 effective 1 October 1999 with a date of rank of 1 October 1999.  Had she been considered for promotion by the CY90 promotion board when she should have first been considered, chances are good that she would have been selected for promotion to E-6 based on the fact that she was so selected for E-6 immediately by the first promotion board that saw her file without the erroneous and unjust NCOERs.  In light of this fact, it would be fair and equitable to correct her 1 October 1999 date of rank for E-6 to 1 October 1990, the date she would have been promoted if she had been properly reviewed for promotion when she became eligible for promotion to E-6.  However, she should receive back pay as an E-6 only to 27 June 1997 when she began to take appeal action on the erroneous and unjust NCOERs in question.

2.  It would not be fair to have the applicant’s military record also considered by a standby board for promotion to E-7 at this time since she would be disadvantaged by not meeting E-7 eligibility requirements or have any NCOERs to show her E-6 performance and potential for E-7.  

3.  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:
a.  showing that her date of rank for E-6 is 1 October 1990; and

b.  providing her pack pay and allowances as an E-6 effective 24 June 1997 when she began appeal action to correct the erroneous and unjust NCOERs.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__RH___  ___JS___  ___MM___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Robert G. Hinkle____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027844	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	PART GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.310	Promotion	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.