MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028216

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

	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	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)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Retroactive adjustment of the effective date of her promotion to the rank of sergeant (SGT), pay grade E-5, Army Reserve (USAR), to 20 November 1998.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, the order for promotion was dated 3 March 1999, but the effective date was the earlier date of 20 November l998.  Therefore, she has lost base pay and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) between 20 November l998 and 2 March 1999.  She provides a copy of the promotion order.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She was serving on any Army Guard/Reserve (AGR) active duty tour with a USAR transportation group at Fort Sheridan, Illinois, in the fall/early winter of 1998, serving with the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4.  

On 20 November 1998, orders 324-1 was issued by the 336th Transportation Group, Fort Sheridan, Illinois, announcing her promotion to the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5, in military occupational specialty (MOS) 75B (Personnel Specialist).  The order stated the effective date and date of rank of the promotion was 20 November 1998.  It noted that the order was not effective if the individual was not in a promotable status or if it was a conditional appointment/promotion, the individual had to complete a course, as required.  If the course was not completed then the order would be revoked.  

On 5 December 1998, she initiated a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), in which she requested conditional promotion to the rank of SGT, pay grade E-5, effective 20 November 1998.  She requested that she be scheduled to attend a Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) in August 1999.  Her unit commander and the 88th Regional Support Command (USAR) recommended approval for conditional promotion to the rank of SGT and a seat for a PLDC class.  

On 3 March 1999, Orders 99-3-001 were issued by the 336th Transportation Group, again announcing her promotion to the rank of SGT, pay grade E-5, with a date of rank from 20 November 1998.  This order was marked “Corrected Copy”, but no reference was made to the order which this order corrected (Orders 324-1, 20 November 1998), but the wording in the two orders was otherwise identical as to her promotion and the reference to a conditional appointment and the requirement to complete a course of instruction.  This correction appears to have been returned by the servicing finance office on 
11 March 1999 for correction of the social security number of the applicant.  The corrected copy was returned by her unit on 16 March 1999.  

Information has been received by the staff of the Board that essentially shows that the applicant’s promotion to the rank of sergeant was never finally validated. The USAR Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) has advised the staff of the Board that she did not graduate from a PLDC and she is still serving in the USAR in a specialist, pay grade E-4 status.  Her servicing finance office advises that her promotion action to pay grade E-5 was voided in January 2000.  

Army Regulation 140-158 (USAR Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction) provides in paragraph 4-6 and 4-7, that a solider serving in the AGR may be promoted to the rank of SGT without referral to a promotion selection board provided there is a unit vacancy for the promotion.  The promotion must be in the soldier’s career management field or, if in another MOS, he or she must be qualified in that MOS.  Also, a soldier must be a graduate of a PLDC.  The requirement became effective 1 October l991.  An exception can be given if a soldier is not able to attend a PLDC through no fault of his or her own such as operational requirements, nonavailability of class quotas, illness and other such reasons.  The soldier can temporarily be promoted conditioned on completion of a PLDC course.  If the soldier does not complete the course, the promotion action must be voided.  

The above information was recorded on an Optional Form 271 (Conversation Record) (COPY ATTACHED) and was provided to the applicant for her information or rebuttal.  She has failed to respond within the stipulated 30 days  and her case is now being processed for Board action.  

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has repeatedly advised the Board that pay for advancements/promotions to a higher rank will be computed from the date of the advancement/promotion document (orders or a DA Form 4l87 (Personnel Action)) or a later date, if so specified in the promotion document.  Action must be taken by this Board to adjust an effective date of advancement/promotion earlier than the original promotion document.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s request is moot.  Her promotion document has been voided.  She did not graduate from the PLDC class which she was scheduled to attend in August 1999.  Therefore, her conditional promotion to the rank of SGT was properly invalidated  

3.  She has provided no evidence that the previous conclusion is in error or that she is a graduate of a PLDC.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jph___  __eja____  ___vbc___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028216	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	131.04	
2.	131.05	
3.	128.00	
4.		
5.		
6.