PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045356

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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) of his promotion to the rank and pay grade of Sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) be adjusted from 23 June 2000 to 1 May 2000.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that in February 1999 his unit commander scheduled him to attend the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).  However, his attendance at that class was cancelled based on a statement from the Operations Officer, Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), 
San Antonio, Texas and a Department of the Army (DA) Form 1079
(Academic Evaluation Report-AER) issued by the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy, Fort Hood, Texas.  Both these documents certified that the applicant was credited with PLDC completion equivalency based on his prior service completion of a Navy PLDC.  On 1 May 2000, the applicant met the promotion cut-off score, however, the Personnel Services Branch (PSB) of the local Military Personnel Officer (MILPO) informed his commander that he could not be promoted until he completed PLDC.  At this time his unit commander immediately rescheduled him for attendance at the next available PLDC class, which he completed on 23 June 2000, at which time he was promoted. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving on active duty in the Regular Army and that he holds the rank of SGT/E-5, which he attained on 23 June 2000.  

5.  On 22 November 1997, the Operations Officer of the San Antonio MEPS issued a statement that certified that the applicant had met the PLDC requirements as outlined in Army Regulation 601-210.  Enclosed with this certification statement was a DA Form 1059, dated 10 October 1997, issued by the Commandant of the NCO Academy, Fort Hood, Texas.  This AER indicated that the applicant had achieved the course standards for graduation from the PLDC.

6.  On 2 April 1999, the applicant’s unit commander completed a memorandum requesting that the applicant be withdrawn from PLDC Class 06-99.  He supported his request by indicating that he had received verification from the MEPS, San Antonio, which certified the applicant already met the PLDC requirements of the regulation.  

7.  On 20 April 2000, a memorandum “Subject:  Recommendations for Priority on the Order of Merit List” was issued by the Adjutant of the United States Army Garrison, Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland.  This document indicated that the applicant had met the cut-off score for promotion on 1 May 2000, but his promotion would be held in abeyance until the date of his graduation from the PLDC.  On 23 June 2000, the applicant successfully completed the PLDC at 
Fort Campbell, Kentucky and he was promoted to SGT/E-5 effective that date. 

8.  In support of his request, the applicant provides memorandums from his unit commander and from the APG Adjutant, both of which outline the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s promotion case.  These documents verify that the applicant was screened for promotion on 8 February 1999 and that at that time he was recommended for promotion and obtained promotion list status with 688 points.  These memorandums also confirm that on 29 April 1999, the APG PSB of the MILPO requested that the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), promotions branch provide a promotion point determination pertaining to specific prior service Navy awards and to the PLDC equivalency credit based on the applicant’s completion of the Navy leadership course.  

9.  In their reply, the PERSCOM promotion branch granted credit for specific Navy awards.  However, they advised the PSB that the applicant should contact the Naval Education Center in Pensacola, Florida for verification of his Navy training courses.  In addition, PERSCOM informed the PSB that they should contact the Noncommissioned Officer Education Systems (NCOES) branch for clarification on the PLDC equivalency question.  The record also shows that the applicant did contact Navy officials and that he received a transcript of the Navy courses he completed.  However, there is no evidence to show that the PSB contacted the PERSCOM NCOES branch to clarify the applicant’s PLDC equivalency status at this time. 

10.  The unit commander and adjutant memorandums also indicated that on 
9 December 1999, the applicant completed a reevaluation with the PSB and was awarded points for individual Navy courses, some of which were individual classes contained in the Navy PLDC.  However, on 20 April 2000, the PSB prepared an order of merit list for those soldiers who made the cut-off score for promotions to be effective 1 May 2000 but who had not completed PLDC.  The applicant’s name was included on this list and the PSB was contacted in regard to the applicant’s PLDC equivalency credit, however, they denied having documentation to verify this fact and requested proof of completion.  A copy of the MEPS Operations Officer statement and the AER from Fort Hood were provided to the PSB who then contacted the PERSCOM NCOES branch for confirmation of the applicant’s PLDC equivalency.  

11.  The PERSCOM NCOES branch informed the PSB that Navy PLDC was not equivalent to Army PLDC and would not be accepted as equivalent in lieu of Army PLDC attendance.  At this time, the applicant’s unit commander immediately scheduled him for attendance to Army PLDC.  On 23 June 2000, the applicant successfully completed PLDC Class 7-00 at the NCO Academy, 
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and he was promoted to SGT on that date. 

12.  DA Message 050523Z, May 93, Subject: Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) Equivalency provides a list of courses which authorize the granting of Army PLDC course equivalency.  The Navy leadership course is not included on the approved list of courses for which Army PLDC equivalency is authorized.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is clear that Navy PLDC does not carry Army PLDC equivalency credit and that the applicant should not have been credited with PLDC completion based on his Navy course.  However, the Board does not view this as the primary issue in this case.  

2.  In the opinion of the Board, the overriding factor in this case is whether or not the applicant and his chain of command were erroneously led to believe he was fully eligible for promotion prior to his meeting the promotion cut off score on 
1 May 2000, and that based on this false presumption, he was unfairly denied an earlier attendance date at Army PLDC, which would have made him fully eligible to be promoted on the 1 May effective date. 

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant presented to his chain of command, in good faith, documents from a MEPS official that certified he met the regulatory requirements for PLDC completion equivalency, and that, as a result of this verification, his unit commander withdrew him from a scheduled PLDC class.  It is obvious to this Board that had the applicant and his chain of command been made aware of the PLDC equivalency problem at the proper time, the applicant would have been scheduled for, attended, and completed Army PLDC prior to his attaining promotion eligibility on 1 May 2000.

4.  The fact that, immediately upon discovery of the equivalency problem, the applicant did attend and successfully complete PLDC also attests to his ability to meet the PLDC promotion standard.  It also supports the conclusion that had it not been for the PLDC equivalency problem, the applicant would have completed Army PLDC on an earlier date and he would have been fully eligible for promotion on 1 May 2000.  

5.  Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s promotion effective date and date of rank to 1 May 2000 and to provide the applicant any back pay and allowances due as a result of this action. 

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 showing that promotion effective date and date of rank to SGT/E-5 of the individual concerned is 1 May 2000, and the individual concerned be provided any back pay and allowances due as a result of this corrective action. 

BOARD VOTE:  

___ra___  __jdm ___  __cg____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____John D. Miller______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045356	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.1000	
2.  21	102.0700	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.