BOARD DATE: 26 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017264 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ____x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2燛nclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 26 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017264 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. BOARD DATE: 26 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017264 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, in effect, correction of his date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6) to 1 September 2016. 2. He states on 23 August 2016, the promotion cutoff score for SSG in military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist) was 688 points and his record should have reflected 692 promotion points. However, due to a misinterpretation of the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP1) course by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Junior Enlisted Promotions, the course, which was previously worth 32 promotion points, was dropped from the Promotion Point Worksheet (PPW). After numerous attempts to resolve the issue, on 9 September 2016, HRC corrected the problem and re-awarded him the 32 missing promotion points. The responsibility for the error fell 100 percent on HRC's interpretation of the course and their lack of a timely response to numerous inquiries. 3. He provides: * PPW, dated 29 June 2016 and 9 July 2016 * Memoranda, subject: * Administrative Records Correction (ARC) Request for [Applicant], dated 23 August 2016 * Request for ARC [Applicant], dated 14 September 2016 * ARC Reconsideration Request for [Applicant], dated 21 September 2016 * Request for ARC [Applicant], dated 12 October 2016 * Email, dated 26 July 2016, 3 August 2016, and 27 September 2016 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-2 on 5燜ebruary 2007. He was trained in and awarded MOS 42A. 2. On 1 April 2013, he was promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT)/E-5. 3. A PPW with an effective date of 29 June 2016 shows the applicant was awarded a total of 692 promotion points, of which 68 points were awarded in Section C - Military Education, block 2 (Resident Military Training). This block includes points awarded for the RASP1 course and four other military courses. However, his PPW with an effective date of 9燡uly 2016 shows he was awarded a total of 660 points, of which 36 points were awarded in block 2 (Resident Military Training). The four courses listed on the previous PPW are listed the 9燡uly 2016 PPW, but the RASP1 course is not included in this block. This block represents a loss of 32 points relative to the previous PPW. 4. The applicant's command submitted numerous email inquiries to HRC concerning the 32 promotion points being deleted from the applicant's PPW for the RASP1 course. An email dated 26 July 2016 shows the HRC, Junior Enlisted Promotions, representative responded to removal of the promotion points by stating, "On 8 July 2016, the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program Phase I with education code (EYM) was submitted to stop awarding points. Lower or the last phase of a course is to award promotion points." This official listed an updated military education website and advised the applicant it may be helpful in determining his education points. 5. On 23 August 2016, the applicant's commander requested the applicant's records be administratively corrected to reflect 692 promotion points effective 29燡une 2016. The commander stated on 9 July 2016 the applicant's PPW was updated and the RASP1 resident course and corresponding promotion points were removed. After numerous inquiries, the Junior Enlisted Promotion Team explained that Phase I of the course would not count until Phase II was completed. The commander added RASP is not a two part/phase course; RASP1 is an eight-week resident course listed in the Army Training Requirement and Resources System (ATRRS), which is mandatory for completion by all enlisted personnel between the pay grades of E-1 through E-5 for selection in the 75th Ranger Regiment. The RASP2 course is reserved for pay grade E-6 and above. The commander further requested the applicant's PPW be reevaluated to include RASP1 and the applicant be promoted to SSG with an effective DOR of 1 September 2016 to rectify the administrative oversight. 6. On 14 September 2016, the HRC, Chief, Enlisted Promotions Branch, disapproved the commander's request for administrative correction of the applicant's record for promotion to pay grade E-6. This official stated the PPW, dated July 2016, shows 660 promotion points. The Department of the Army (DA) cutoff score for primary MOS 42A was 688 for 1 September 2016. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), incorrect promotion scores predicated on missing or inaccurate personnel or training information will not constitute a basis for promotion score adjustments to affect previously announced promotions. Corrections to either the personnel or training records affect promotion scores moving forward and not retroactively. RASP1 has been reevaluated. As of 9 September 2016, RASP1 is awarded promotion points. 7. On 21 September 2016, the commander requested reconsideration of his previous request that the applicant抯 record be administratively corrected to award him points for RASP1 and subsequent promotion to SSG with a DOR of 1燬eptember 2016. He quotes AR 600-8-19 and states the applicant and the command did everything within their power to correct the erroneous "drop" of 32 promotion points due to HRC抯 misinterpretation of the RASP course. The commander stated the direct responsibility of not fixing this mistake before affecting the individual抯 promotion did not fall on the unit commander, S-1, or the individual. The applicant, unit commander, and the S-1 made multiple attempts to rectify this error with HRC to no avail. 8. On 12 October 2016, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions Branch, HRC, disapproved the commander's request for reconsideration of his previous request. He reiterated the information contained in his 14 September 2016 memorandum as stated above. Again, this official stated the commander's request does not warrant an ARC under the semi-centralized promotion system. 9. Effective 1 November 2016, the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6. 10. During the processing of this case, on 17 March 2017, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, DA Promotions, HRC, who recommended disapproval of the applicant's request. He stated: a. The RASP1 resident military training course was evaluated to assess whether or not the course should be awarding promotion points. On 8 July 2016, RASP1 was determined to be a phase I course since there was a RASP2 course. When a course has more than one phase, it was determined that promotion points are awarded after the last phase of all related courses have been completed. b. The RASP1 course was reevaluated on 31 August 2016, based on information received from the applicant's unit. On 31 August 2016, the Infantry Branch Chief, HRC, confirmed that RASP1 was an independent course and not a phase 1 course required to be enrolled in RASP2. In addition, he stated RASP1 promotion points affected all Soldiers Army wide who completed the course. Adjustments to promotion points were to affect promotion scores moving forward and not retroactively for all Soldiers with the RASP1 course. 11. On 27 March 2017, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgement and/or response. No response was received. REFERENCES: AR 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-1e states: a. The records managers (servicing Military Personnel Division (MPD's) S-1 personnel, human resources (HR) personnel, unit administrators, or any other individual authorized to service the official military personnel file are responsible for personnel information management in accordance with AR 600𤾃04 (Army Military Human Resource Record Management) (both personnel and training data accuracy and timeliness). Data accuracy ensures promotion points are reflective of a Soldier抯 actual achievements and accomplishments. Each Soldier bears a personal responsibility to ensure their records are accurate and reflect all information necessary to compute accurate promotion scores. This process enables the Army to select the right number of Soldiers for promotion in the right skills to fulfill authorized structure requirements. The battalion HR specialist and/or the HR specialist will assist Soldiers in this matter. b. Incorrect promotion scores predicated on missing or inaccurate personnel and/or training information will not constitute a basis for promotion score adjustments to affect previously announced promotions. Corrections to either the personnel or training records affect promotion scores moving forward and not retroactively. This process instills a disciplined approach with direct responsibility falling on the unit commanders, S-1, and the individual Soldier. Each must ensure they have complied with the requirements outlined within this regulation to ensure the Army has proper visibility of eligible Soldiers and their scores; resulting in a capability to staff the Army. There are no exceptions to this provision. c. RA Soldiers will compete for promotion based on automatically calculated promotion scores generated from both personnel and training data in the electronic military personnel office system and ATRRS. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, his DOR to SSG/E-6 should be 1燬eptember 2016 instead of 1 November 2016. 2. He argues that he should have been allowed to keep the 32 promotion points for the RASP1 course thereby meeting the cutoff score for promotion to SSG on 1燬eptember 2016. However, information obtained from HRC explained that effective 8 July 2016 no points were given for RASP1 because HRC believed it was an introductory course to phase II. The course was reevaluated on 31 August 2016 after information was obtained that verified the RASP1 was an independent course. In addition, HRC stated RASP1 promotion points affected all Soldiers Army wide who completed the course. HRC further stated adjustments to promotion points would affect promotion scores moving forward and not retroactively for all Soldiers with the RASP1 course. 3. The evidence of record shows effective 8燡uly 2016, promotion points for the RASP1 course (32 points) were removed from his PPW and his points were reevaluated. He was subsequently awarded a total of 660 points. The DA cutoff score for primary MOS 42A was 688 for 1 September 2016. Since the applicant抯 total score was 660 points, he did not qualify for promotion to pay grade E-6 at that time. The evidence further shows awarding promotion points for the RASP1 course was not an isolated problem, but affected all Soldiers Army wide. This issue was not resolved until 31 August 2016. 4. HRC later determined RASP1 was an independent course and, as such, authorized promotion points. However, points were not to be applied retroactively for any Soldiers affected by this decision. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160017264 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160017264 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2