MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  16 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029563

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Theodore G. Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reinstatement on the staff sergeant (SSG) promotion standing list with an effective date of 1 December 1998.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a detailed personal statement, in effect, that after his placement on the SSG promotion standing list in December 1993, mission requirements from January 1994 through January 1996 including deployment to Somalia, deployment to a field training exercise, unit deactivation activities, attendance at the basic non-commissioned officer course, holiday working schedules, and other critical duties prevented him from participating in the recomputation of his promotion points.  He further states that in February 1996, his servicing personnel office informed him that his promotion packet was lost therefore, he could not complete the recomputation of his promotion points; that in March 1996, he was informed by his servicing personnel office that he would be removed from the SSG promotion standing list unless his entire promotion packet was reconstructed; and that in April 1996, he was removed from the SSG promotion standing list while attending formal training for military occupation specialty (MOS) reclassification to 67S, OH-58D helicopter repairman, enroute to his permanent change of station (PCS) assignment in Korea in his new MOS.  He also states that since May 1996, he has made a number of failed attempts to reconstruct his promotion packet and gain promotion list reinstatement.  He adds that since his records show he previously met the prerequisites for SSG promotion list status, his appearance before a SSG promotion board should not be a condition for reinstatement on the SSG promotion standing list.

The applicant submitted a number of supporting documents including a copy of a request for exception to policy dated 8 February 1999, a copy of a DA Form 200, Transmittal Record, dated 15 July 1997, a copy of DA Form 3355, Promotion Point Worksheet dated 8 May 1997, a copy of a SSG promotion standing list (C-10 roster) dated 15 April 1996, a memorandum issued by the 4th Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) dated 26 March 1996, a copy of a request for MOS reclassification dated 7 July 1995, a copy of DA Form 3357, Promotion Board Recommendation, dated 14 December 1993, a copy of a college transcript, and copies of awards and certificates.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's available military records show:

He had 2 years, 11 months and 29 days of prior active service in the rank of specialist (SPC E-4) in MOS 92B, medical laboratory specialist.  On 12 April 1988, he reentered for active Regular Army service in MOS 67Y, attack helicopter repairman.  He currently holds the rank of sergeant and performs duties in MOS 67S, OH-58D helicopter repairman, at Fort Hood, Texas. 

A DA Form 3357, Promotion Board Recommendation, dated 14 December 1993, indicated that after appearing before a local SSG promotion board, he was 

recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 67Y and earned a total of 778 combined administrative and board points.  There was no complete record of SSG promotion board proceedings contained in his available records.  Also, his original initial DA Form 3355 was not contained in his available records.

On 7 July 1995, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (DA PERSCOM) approved a request for reclassification to MOS 67S, OH-58D helicopter repairman. 

A memorandum issued by the 4th PSB dated 26 March 1996, stated, in effect and in pertinent part, that during his unit in-processing, there was no evidence of the existence of the applicant’s promotion packet or that he completed his processing at the PSB promotions section by having his promotion packet reviewed, reconstructing a promotion packet, and by his integration onto the current SSG promotion standing list.  The memorandum further stated that the aforementioned in-processing procedures should be accomplished by 9 April 1996 or he would be removed from the SSG promotion standing list.  There was nothing in his available records nor in the evidence provided by him to indicate that the 9 April 1996 suspense requirement was accomplished.

A C-10 roster dated 15 April 1996, showed that he was recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 67Y with a total of 718 points.  A DA Form 3355, Promotion Point Worksheet, dated 8 May 1997, contained an entry in the remarks section indicating that he was on a C-10 roster from his last unit however, his promotion packet got lost and another one must be constructed.  His unit commander signed the form however, it appeared incomplete because only a partial recapitulation of his administrative points had been accomplished.

A DA Form 200 dated 15 July 1997, indicated in the special instructions section of the form, that the packet for each person should be tracked since they were sent and lost 
3 times.  There was nothing on the DA Form 200 to indicate the type of packet or for whom it pertained.

In an undated memorandum, DA PERSCOM, Chief, Promotions Branch, approved in part, his 8 February 1999 request for reinstatement on the SSG promotion standing list with a retroactive effective date of January 1999, providing that he appear before a SSG promotion board and was recommended for promotion.  The memorandum further stated, in effect, that upon receiving a favorable recommendation, his servicing PSB would reconstruct his DA Form 3355 using documentation from his records dated prior to 15 January 1999 along with January 1999 promotion point data from DA PERSCOM and establish his promotion score effective as of 1 April 1999.  The memorandum also stated that the C-10 roster dated 15 April 1996 reflected only data base input from December 1993 and in accordance with promotion policies in effect at the time, 
annual mandatory recomputations should have been accomplished by the servicing PSB regardless of his availability and his removal from the promotion standing list 

should not have occurred.  The memorandum acknowledged that he did have promotion list status and the loss of his promotion packet apparently prevented the 
completion of required annual recomputation however, no source documents including 
promotion board proceedings or the initial DA Form 3355 existed to verify his promotion board score and execute a valid reconstruction.  Also, since verification of his promotion list status did not occur within 90 days of his arrival to a new command, he must reappear before a promotion board to gain recommended list status as required by 
AR 600-8-19.

Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19 pertains to enlisted promotions and reductions and states, in pertinent part, that if a promotion packet cannot be obtained but promotion board proceedings are available and the soldier’s losing command can verify recommended list status, then the promotion board proceedings or the original initial DA Form 3355 signed by the promotion authority may be used to reconstruct the soldier’s promotion packet, provided it is determined the soldier held valid recommended status prior to PCS and can be integrated onto the list.  The regulation further states that soldiers whose promotion packet was lost and cannot be reconstructed or whose recommended list status cannot be verified within 90 days of arrival in the command must appear before a promotion board to gain recommended list status.  The servicing personnel activity will notify the promotion authority of this 90 days after the soldier’s arrival in the command.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board concludes that while the circumstances resulting in the applicant’s removal from the SSG promotion standing list was certainly unfortunate, it would appear that Army promotion officials offered him an equitable remedy to his dilemma.  

2.  His reinstatement to the SSG promotion standing list on the condition that he receives a favorable board recommendation guarantees that such recommendation was based on a complete picture of his promotion eligibility including computation of his administrative points as currently reflected in his official records and verification of his primary MOS of 67S.  It also guarantees that a full and complete record of board proceedings including a board score is available.  

3.  The Board believes that the execution of this remedy not only resolves the applicant’s promotion dilemma but also preserves the integrity of the promotion process for all soldiers affected thereby.   

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in 

error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JP___  __CP___  __OT___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029563	
SUFFIX		
RECON	NA	
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	NA	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	NA	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NA	
DISCHARGE REASON	NA	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.