PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           30 July 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066580

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 to staff sergeant (E-6) be adjusted retroactive to 1 April 1991.  He states that he might have been eligible for subsequent promotions earlier based on an earlier promotion to staff sergeant.  He states that only since starting work in the Personnel Service Battalion did he become aware that he had the right to appeal the 1991 denial of the change of his promotion date.

3.  The applicant entered active duty on 10 August 1983 and has continuous active service since that time.  The applicant was a sergeant (E-5) at the time of action in question.  He has subsequently been promoted to staff sergeant (E-6), effective 1 August 1991, and to sergeant first class (E-7), effective 1 September 1998. 

4.  The promotion point cut-off score for the applicant’s primary military occupational specialty (PMOS), as published, was 553.  Completion of the Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course (BNCOC) gave the applicant an additional 30 promotion points to his previous score to put his total at 564.

5.  In December 1990, the applicant had completed BNCOC and received his Academic Evaluation Report (AER) in January 1991.  Upon receipt of the report he consulted with his Personnel Administrative Center and requested that his promotion points be adjusted.  At this point, the Personnel Administrative Center (PAC) should have forwarded the AER to the servicing Personnel Service Battalion so the document and the points could officially be added to the applicant’s promotion packet.  

6.  In a memorandum to Headquarters, 51st Signal Battalion, dated 2 May 1991, the PAC requested that the applicant receive a retroactive promotion due to extenuating circumstances.  The PAC officials indicated that, at the time that the applicant brought his request to them, they had just completed an operational jump and the majority of their equipment and records were still in crates.  The PAC detached a staff member to assist the applicant in getting to the unit's servicing Personnel Service Company, the 261st Personnel Service Company, in Heilbronn, Germany.  

7.  The applicant received and completed the necessary paperwork and returned it to the PAC for the proper signatures.  The PAC officials reports that they contacted the Personnel Service Battalion and were advised that they could either give the reevaluations to his Personnel Service Company or mail it to the Rear Detachment Commander for turn-in at the rear Personnel Service Company.  

8.  The forms were completed in January 1991 and mailed per instructions to the Rear Detachment Commander.  The Rear Detachment Commander received the packet on 4 March 1991.  The PAC officials report that the applicant had met the cutoff score for promotion for April 1991.  It was their belief that the applicant would be promoted effective 1 April 1991.

9.  The PAC was advised that the packet was not received by the Personnel Service Company in time for the April 1991 promotion consideration.  The delay was due to the PAC being misinformed about sending the packet to the Rear Commander not to the Personnel Service Company.  The PAC stated that when they inquired about a retroactive entitlement, they were informally notified that as the applicant's request was received after the cutoff date and there were no exceptions to the effective date for readjustment of points, no relief could be granted.  Based on this notification, the PAC submitted a formal request via Headquarters, 51st Signal Battalion for consideration of a retroactive reevaluation and promotion.

10.  On 4 June 1991, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch, US Total Army Personnel Command, responded with a disapproval of the request for reevaluation and promotion.  He stated that there are no procedures for waivers and no exceptions granted due to standardization to eliminate retroactive promotions that were neither projected for nor budgeted.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant completed BNCOC for which he was awarded additional promotion points that qualified him for promotion in April 1991.

2.  The applicant turned in a copy of his AER showing he completed that course to his battalion PAC as instructed and as is standard practice.  It was the PAC’s job to properly forward the document to the Personnel Service Company so the points could be added to his promotion packet.  The PAC did so; however, due to their deployment and slow mail, the notice did not get to the Rear Detachment Commander until 4 March 1991.  That delay caused the applicant to not be promoted to E-6 on 1 April 1991.

3.  It is not reasonable to require soldiers to be totally responsible for the processing of their own personnel actions.  The Army established the PAC system to be the knowledgeable, competent link between the soldier and the Army’s personnel system.  If that system errs due to misinformation or operational commitments, the individual soldier should not be made to pay for that error.

4.  The Board understands that to routinely grant exceptions to policy on the deadlines for submission for promotion considerations creates an unmanageable system.  However, exceptions based on unique situations must be considered.  

5.  Both the applicant and the PAC believed that they had properly handled the additional information submission.  The PAC was in a unique situation and unable to perform its function properly as it noted in its 2 May 1991 Memorandum.  

6.  Therefore, the Board concludes that an exception to policy should be made and the applicant be shown to have been promoted to staff sergeant effective 1 April 1991.

7.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below:

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

a.   showing that the individual concerned was promoted to staff sergeant (E-6) on 1 April 1991; 

b.  paying him any back pay due him from 1 April 1991 to the present; 

c.  determining if, based on this earlier promotion, he would have been eligible for an earlier consideration for subsequent promotions; and,

e.  if appropriate, referring his file to a standby advisory board for consideration.

BOARD VOTE:  

__aao___  __ksh___  __tl______  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_     Arthur A. Omartian_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066580	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020730	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.04	
2.	131.05	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.