PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060962

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 his staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) promotion effective date and date of rank (DOR) be changed to 3 January 2000, and that he be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that soldiers in his unit with less promotion points were promoted ahead of him.  He claims that his SSG/E-6 DOR of 2 May 2000 should be 3 January 2000.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of an Inspector General (IG) report, dated 12 June 2000, issued by the Deputy IG, 143rd Transportation Command, Orlando, Florida.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving as a 
SSG/E-6 in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  He is presently assigned to the 196th Transportation Company, Kissimmee, Florida and serving in MOS 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  

5.  The record contains a November 1999 promotion standing list, published by the 143rd Transportation Command, Orlando, Florida.  This report confirms that while he was serving in the 495th Transportation Company, Lakeland, Florida, the applicant was recommended for promotion in MOS 88M and added to the 
143rd Transportation Command promotion standing list with a promotion point total of 503 points.  Two other members of his unit who were also recommended for promotion in MOS 88M were also on this promotion standing list with promotion point totals of 402 and 429 points, respectively.  

6.  Orders Number 00-013-019 and 00-013-0020, dated 13 January 2000, issued by the Headquarters, 143rd Transportation Command, authorized the promotion of the two individuals who were on the same promotion standing list as the applicant in the same MOS with less promotion points.  The promotion effective date and DOR established for both these individuals was 13 January 2000.  

7.  Orders Number 00-123-004, dated 2 May 2000, issued by Headquarters, 143rd Transportation Command, authorized the applicant’s promotion to 
SSG/E-6, in MOS 88M, effective 2 May 2000.  

8.  On 12 June 2000, the Deputy IG, 143rd Transportation Command, responded to an inquiry from the applicant.  The Deputy IG indicated that officials of the 
143rd Transportation Command had determined that, in accordance with the governing Army regulation, the applicant should have been promoted to 
SSG/E-6, effective 3 January 2000; and that his promotion effective date and DOR should be adjusted accordingly.  In addition, they recommended that the applicant receive all back pay and allowances due as a result.  Finally, the applicant was advised that his recourse to correct these errors was to apply to this Board for relief. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his SSG/E-6 DOR should be changed to 3 January 2000, and it finds this claim has merit.  

2.  The evidence of record contains an IG report that confirms that unit promotion officials admit they erred in the applicant’s promotion.  These officials verify that based on his promotion standing list status and point total, the applicant should have been promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, effective 3 January 2000.  Therefore, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to adjust the applicant’s SSG/E-6 promotion effective date and DOR accordingly and to provide him all back pay and allowances due as a result.

3.  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 the SSG/E-6 promotion effective date and DOR of the individual concerned is 3 January 2000; and by providing him all back pay and allowances due as a result. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__GDP__   _ _WTM__  __RTD     GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    __George D. Paxson__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060962	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/24	
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.  21	102.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.