IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018591 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 promotion to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2012. 2. The applicant states she made the cutoff score to SGT on 1 March 2012. She did not have a DA Form 268 (Suspension of Favorable Action (FLAG)) filed against her and she was not pending any adverse action. Her unit failed to promote her on 1 March 2012. 3. The applicant provides a memorandum and a Headquarters (HQ), Department of the Army (DA) Monthly SGT/staff sergeant (SSG) Promotion Selection Name List. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is an active duty Regular Army specialist (SPC)/E-4 and she holds military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist). She was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX. 2. Her record is void of any evidence that shows she was ever promoted to SGT. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding why she was not promoted are not available for review with this case 3. The applicant provides a memorandum, dated 23 February 2012, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), wherein it shows the DA promotion point cutoff scores for 1 March 2012 to SGT in MOS 42A was 600 points in the primary zone (PZ) and 633 points in the secondary zone (SZ). 4. She also provides a HQDA Monthly SGT/SSG Promotion Selection Name List (Selected for 1 March 2012), as of 24 February 2012. This list contains her name and stated, "The following…have been selected for promotion for 1 March 2012. They should contact their Battalion S1 or Military Personnel Division to determine if they are qualified fro promotion on 1 March 2012. 5. A review of her records shows that on 7 February 2013 the applicant called HRC to inquire about her not getting promoted to SGT. The applicant stated she had been flagged for an investigation at the time she made the cutoff score for promotion and she was later denied the promotion for unknown reasons (emphasis added). She was instructed to consult her chain of command at the battalion level. 6. In the processing of this case, on 5 December 2013, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, DA Promotions, HRC. The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request and stated the applicant made the 1 March 2012 HQDA by-name list but was never promoted in the Enlisted Distribution Assignment System. She was removed from the promotion selection list in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) which states removal will be effective the 1st day of the 13th month following the date the Soldier was placed on the promotion selection by-name list. 7. On 19 November 2013, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. She did not respond. 8. Several attempts were made to contact members of the applicant's chain of command to verify why she was not promoted; however, they failed to respond. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends she should be promoted to SGT with a DOR of 1 March 2012. 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant made the by-name promotion list to SGT on 1 March 2012 and, based on her own admission, she was not promoted at that time because she was flagged pending an investigation. Her record is void of the specific facts and circumstances showing why she was never promoted to SGT and was subsequently removed from the promotion list. 3. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence or argument that supports her contention that she should be promoted to SGT with a DOR of 1 March 2012. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that what her unit did in this case was correct and she was properly not promoted to SGT and removed from the SGT/E-5 promotion by-name selection list. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant the requested relief. 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) AR20130018591 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130018591 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1