IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015876 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his promotion effective date (PED) for sergeant (SGT) be amended to show 1 March 2013. 2. The applicant states: a. his promotion packet was sent to and entered onto the wrong Regional Support Command (RSC's) Permanent Promotion Recommended List (PPRL) in March 2013. He was promotable on the February PPRL and there were slots available in his region. Due to him being put on the wrong list and his mileage (willing to travel) not being accurate, he was not slotted and promoted in February and he did not receive pay for his entitled grade. b. he submitted his promotion packet in February 2013. The packet was approved to be placed on the PPRL and he was placed on the 88th RSC's PPRL. c. his home of record is San Diego, California; however, he was mobilized at the time that the packet was submitted to the board so he was placed on the PPRL for his current (mobilized) address in the state of Washington. He realized this discrepancy when another mobilized Soldier from his home of record was placed and slotted on the correct PPRL for the 63rd RSC. He and the other Soldier hold the same military occupational specialty (MOS) and the applicant at the time had more time in grade and time in service over the other Soldier. The other Soldier was promoted the following month. d. he requested assistance to get his promotion packet transferred to the correct PPRL. By mid June 2013, he received notification he had been added to the list for July. When the PPRL for July 2013 posted he noticed he was slotted for E-5 and he was informed he would receive promotion orders shortly after. He received his promotion order, dated 9 August 2013, with a PED of 1 August 2013. e. if his packet had been sent to the correct RSC, he would have been slotted for E-5 and promoted in the month of March. 3. The applicant provides: * Promotion orders, dated 9 August 2013 * 88th RSC PPRL for February 2013 * 63rd RSC "Slotted" Soldiers for March 2013 * Email traffic CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 17 November 2008. 2. Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command Orders 13-221-00079, dated 9 August 2013, show he was promoted to SGT effective 1 August 2013. 3. In the processing of this case, on 7 November 2103, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Management Division, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, NC. The advisory official states: a. in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), Soldiers recommended for promotion are integrated onto an order of merit list called a PPRL. These lists are managed by the servicing RSC for the geographic region. Then, as vacant positions are reported, the RSC will identify the first Soldier on the list that meets the reported requirements of these positions within their MOS and elected travel distance. b. their records indicate the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGT and erroneously integrated onto the PPRL managed by the 88th RSC. This error caused a delay in promotion. Had he been integrated onto the PPRL managed by the 63rd RSC, he would have been promoted 1 July 2013 based on available vacancies within his MOS and elected mileage. Therefore, his promotion order has been amended to reflect a promotion effective date and date of rank of 1 July 2013. 4. Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command Orders 13-305-00001, dated 1 November 2013, amended his promotion orders (Orders 13-221-00079) to show his PED as 1 July 2013. 5. On 13 November 2013, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comment or a rebuttal. He responded that he was content with the results of the board. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests his promotion orders for SGT be amended to show his PED as 1 March 2013. 2. Evidence shows he was promoted to SGT effective 1 August 2013. 3. Evidence also shows he was recommended for promotion to SGT and erroneously integrated onto the PPRL managed by the 88th RSC. This error caused a delay in promotion. The advisory official states had the applicant been integrated onto the PPRL managed by the 63rd RSC, he would have been promoted 1 July 2013. As a result, his promotion orders to SGT were amended to show his PED as 1 July 2013. 4. His PED was corrected to show 1 July 2013 based on available vacancies within his MOS and elected mileage. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base amending his PED date to 1 March 2013. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ __X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130015876 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130015876 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1