PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           4 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035444

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful 		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter 		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 date of rank for promotion to E-8 be adjusted to 1 April 1999 and that he be paid all back pay and allowances due.

3.  The applicant states that the Calendar Year 1998 Master Sergeant (CY1998 MSG) Promotion Selection Board selected him for promotion to E-8.  Promotions were made through his promotion sequence number on 1 April 1999; however, he was not promoted until 24 June 1999 because he did not have a favorable National Agency Check (NAC) or valid security clearance of secret or higher.  He adds that he reviewed his records in preparation for the promotion board and was told that everything was in order.  When he did not get promoted on 1 April 1999, he inquired and was told that it would take time to cut the orders.  It was not until June 1999 that he was told the real reason for his failure to be promoted and the matter was corrected.  In support of his application, he provides letters from his battalion commander and battalion command sergeant major stating that he should not be penalized for the oversights of personnel specialists and security managers whose jobs are to monitor such things.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he is a first sergeant (E-8) with a date of rank of 24 June 1999.  Since 1992, he has worked as an Army recruiter in the Spokane, Washington area.  When his records were being prepared to go before the CY1998 MSG Promotion Selection Board, he traveled to Fort Lewis, Washington, to review and update his records.  He was told that his records were in order.

5.  The applicant was selected for promotion to MSG (E-8) and should have been promoted on 1 April 1999.  When he was not, he made an inquiry and was told that his promotion orders would probably be issued on 1 June 1999 with an effective date of 1 April 1999.  On 19 June 1999, he was told that he could not be promoted without a security clearance or updated NAC.  He received his clearance and his promotion orders on 24 June 1999.

6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the US Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia.  The opinion recommends that the applicant’s request be denied because the applicant did not meet the security requirements for promotion in Army Regulation 600-8-19.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for rebuttal.  He stated that he did everything in his power to insure that his records were in order, but was not properly served by those soldiers who take care of security and personnel matters.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  It is linked to AR 600-8 and provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support promotions and reductions.  It states, in pertinent part, that promotion to the rank of master sergeant (MSG) and sergeant major SGM) requires a favorable National Agency Check (NAC) or a security clearance of secret or higher.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant conscientiously reviewed his records in preparation for the CY1998 MSG Promotion Selection Board.  He was not aware that his security clearance had lapsed or that he required a security clearance of secret or higher or a recent favorable NAC in order to be promoted.

2.  Following his selection for promotion to E-8, neither the applicant’s chain of command, nor his security manager or personnel specialist informed him of a potential problem with his security clearance which could hold up his promotion.

3.  The applicant’s chain of command supports his request contending that the applicant should not be penalized for the failings of others.

4.  The advisory opinion from the US Total Army Personnel Command, citing the provisions of AR 600-8-19, opined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for promotion to E-8 on his scheduled promotion date and, therefore, his request should be denied.

5.  The applicant relied upon his personnel and security specialists to alert him to any potential problem with his timely promotion to E-8; he was not served well by those individuals.  Notwithstanding the US Total Army Personnel Command advisory opinion, the Board believes it would be unjust to deny the applicant his timely promotion to E-8.

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 adjusting the date of rank for the promotion of the individual concerned to the rank of Master Sergeant (E-8) from 24 June 1999 to 1 April 1999, and by paying to him all pay and allowance which may become due as a result of that action.

BOARD VOTE:  

__lls____  ___jps__  ___mvt___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__LUTHER L. SANTIFUL___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035444	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	129.0500	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.