PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041192

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 the effective date and date of rank (DOR) for his promotion to the pay grade of E-5 be changed from 1 January 1999 to 1 December 1998.

3.  The applicant states that he completed and turned in his request for reevaluation of his promotion points to the battalion personnel administration center (PAC) on 23 September 1998; however, the personnel service battalion (PSB) claimed that it was not received until 8 October 1998.  Consequently, the adjustment of his promotion points was not made until October 1998 and did not become effective until January 1999.  As a result, he missed his opportunity to be promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 December 1998 when the cut-off score was low enough for him to be promoted.  He also states that the established suspense for requests for reevaluations to be at the PSB was by the 26th of the month; however, neither the PAC or the PSB could provide any evidence of when his request was actually received at the PSB.  In effect, he was penalized for following established procedures and the failure of either the PAC or the PSB to follow their own procedures in a timely manner.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his request for reevaluation, a copy of the promotion work center (PWC) standard operating procedures (SOP) that were in effect at the PSB, and a copy of his denial of his request for adjustment of his DOR from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 9 June 1994 for a period of 3 years and has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.

5.  On 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted a request for promotion points reevaluation.  The form (DA Form 3355) was stamped as received on 23 September 1998.

6.  On 29 October 1998 the NCO in charge (NCOIC) of the PWC dispatched a memorandum to the applicant’s PAC indicating that the request for reevaluation was received at the PSB on 8 October 1998, that the applicant’s points had been changed to 611 points as a result of the reevaluation, and that until they became effective on 1 January 1999, his points would remain at 586.  The NCOIC did not sign the DA Form 3355 until 30 October 1998.

7.  Meanwhile, on 8 December 1998 the applicant submitted a request to have his reevaluation made effective 1 December 1998 due to the fact that he had turned his request in prior to the established date and because there was no accountability of where his request was at during the time it should have been at the PSB.  The battalion and garrison commanders both supported his request and indicated that had his request been timely processed, his score would have been effective 1 December 1998 instead of 1 January 1999.
8.  On 10 November 1998 the Department of the Army announced the cut-off score for the applicant’s military occupational specialty (MOS), which was 71L, as 592.  However, because his points were not effective until 1 January 2000, he was not promoted.  The applicant met the cut-off score for January 1999 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective 1 January 1999 with a DOR of the same date.

9.  On 19 March 1999 the PERSCOM denied his request citing a message (MILPER Message 95-126) which clarified promotions to the pay grade of E-5 and E-6.  It stated, in effect, that soldiers requesting promotion actions must submit their requests early enough to allow the promotion chain of command sufficient processing time.  This includes, but is not limited to, meeting the servicing PSB suspense date for submission of promotion action requests.  The PERSCOM also cited discrepancies in the computation and credits awarded to the applicant on his DA Form 3355 and denied his request.  

10.  The SOP for the PWC at the PSB dated 20 February 1997 clearly indicates that requests for promotion points reevaluations must be received at the PSB no later that the 26th of the month.  A review of the current SOP for the PWC dated 14 January 2000 (1 year after the applicant’s promotion) indicates that such requests must be received at the PSB no later than the 20th of the month.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures for processing promotion point reevaluations.  It states, in pertinent part, that the PSB will compute the administrative points with a reevaluation date the month and year the request for reevaluation was received in the PSB.  Promotion points achieved through the reevaluation process are effective for promotion on the first day of the third month following reevaluation.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the denial of the applicant’s request by the PERSCOM, the Board finds that the applicant submitted his request for reevaluation to the PAC in sufficient time for it to reach the PSB by the 26th of the month, the established suspense date for such actions at that time.

2.  The Board also finds that it was incumbent on the PSB to provide some proof of when it was received at the PSB if such a suspense was required.  It also appears that a suspense date of the 26th of the month was determined to not be  a realistic date because it was subsequently changed to the 20th of the month.  In any event, when matters such as these which may affect a soldier’s eligibility date for promotion are controlled by the date they are received, it is incumbent on the receiving organization to monitor them closely and maintain strict accountability of receipt.
3.  While the Board notes that the applicable regulation provides that points will only be credited for the month and year they are received at the PSB, it is incumbent on the PAC and the PSB to ensure that such requests are processed and accounted for expeditiously.  In this case, it appears that the applicant did what was expected of him and he relied, albeit to his detriment, on the system that was in place to ensure that his request was processed in a timely manner. 

4.  Regardless of who was responsible for the delay in processing the applicant’s request, the fact remains that the fault did not lie with the applicant, but more so with the administrative processing chain that it had to go through.  In any event, it is an injustice to penalize a soldier for an error that occurred through no fault of his own.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to correct his records to show that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 December 1998.

5.  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 December 1998, with a DOR of 1 December 1998, and entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

BOARD VOTE:  

___mdm_  ___js____  ___mw__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______John N. Slone_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041192	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  314	131.0400/PRM EFF DATE	
2.  315	131.0500/DOR	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.