PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 2000       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029833

	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. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 in effect, reconsideration of his request to be promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, effective 1 August 1995.  Further, he requests his records, if corrected, be referred to any Standby Advisory Boards (STAB’s) for promotion consideration to the rank of sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7, for which he is entitled.

3.  The applicant states, in essence, that at the time of his annual recomputation of his DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) in 1995, educational credit for completion of an Electronics Warfare Operations Course (EWOC), for 12 points, was left off the 1995 worksheet.  If these points had been placed on the record as they had been in previous years, he would have had 624 promotion points for promotion in military occupational specialty (MOS) 98G (Voice Interception-Russian).  The announced promotion point cutoff score in his MOS was 624 for August 1995 and 618 points in September.  He made a prior application to this Board in April 1998, but it was returned by the staff of the Board, based on a recommendation of the Chief, Promotions Branch, US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), since the applicant had not exhausted his administrative remedies by submission of a request for exception to policy through command channels.  

4.  This Board returned his application in February 1999.  When the applicant attempted to submit such a request, it was administratively denied by his current command as he could not verify the exact date the DA Form 3355 was approved (April or July 1995).  If it had been approved in July, the promotion points would not have been valid until 1 October 1995.  

5.  In his most recent application to this Board, the applicant states that he cannot explain why the DA Form 3355 prepared in April 1995 was not approved by his commander until July 1995.  He believes he should not be penalized.  The disapproving official in his unit subsequently verified that other data available showed that the DA Form 3355 was prepared and approved in April 1995.  

6.  The applicant’s military records show that after 7 months in the Delayed Entry Program of the Army Reserve (USAR), he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 13 October 1987, in pay grade E-3.  His service thereafter has been continuous.  After his initial training, he was awarded MOS 98G, and has served in that MOS ever since.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 13 April 1989, and to pay grade E-5, with the rank of sergeant, on 1 August 1990.  His Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER’s) have all been highly satisfactory and there are no negative factors recorded in his records.  

7.  On l7 July 1989, the applicant received a certificate showing completion of the EWOC (Course Number 231-ASIK3) at the USA Army Intelligence Center and Schools.  The course was 6 weeks and 6 days long.

8.  This course was worth 12 promotion points and was shown on DA Forms 3355 prepared in August 1993 and August 1995.  However, it was not shown on a DA Form 3355 prepared as of April 1995.  He was awarded 612 promotion points on the April 1995 worksheet and 655 points on the August 1995 worksheet. 

9.  The Department of the Army announced promotion point cutoff scores for MOS 98G was 624 points for August 1995 and 618 points for September 1995.

10.  The PERSCOM has reviewed the applicant’s latest submissions and recommends favorable action on the applicant’s request to be promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, effective 1 August 1995.  The opinion to the Board states, in pertinent part, that an error was made and his promotion points for the EWOC were left off the April 1995 worksheet.  

11.  The PERSCOM opinion was provided to the applicant who concurred in the recommendation.  Further, he requested, in effect, that his records be referred for promotion consideration to the rank of SFC, by the appropriate DA Standby Advisory Boards (STAB’s).

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, at chapter 3, provides the requirements and procedures for promotion of soldiers to pay grades E-5 and E-6.  Essentially, the soldier, after appearing before a local promotion board, will be awarded a number of promotion points.  The soldier's name will be integrated into a local standing promotion list by military occupational specialty and the total number of promotion points awarded.  The DA announces promotion point cutoff scores each month, by MOS and grade, based on the needs of the Army.  If the soldier meets or exceeds the announced DA promotion point cutoff score, the local command will issue promotion orders effective the first day of the month for which the promotion point cutoff score is announced.  After the initial appearance before a local promotion board, soldiers promotion points are recomputed and or reevaluated on an annual basis or when there has been a significant change in the number of promotion points earned.

13.  Promotion scores are normally valid 3 months after the month in which the score is established, either the initial score or as the result of reevaluation or recomputation. 

14.  Army regulations also provide that promotion reconsideration is authorized when the records of a nonselected officer or senior NCO considered under a centralized promotion system contains one or more material errors at the time the record is originally considered.  A material error is defined as being of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official, or body, had it been corrected at the time the individual was considered by a selection board, it would have resulted in a reasonable chance that the individual would have been selected for promotion.  Promotion reconsideration boards (STAB’s) normally compare the subject’s records (but not identified to the board) against a selected number of records of soldiers selected and nonselected for promotion under the original promotion criteria.  The reconsideration board’s actions are final.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  This Board is satisfied that the applicant has presented sufficient evidence to show that he earned 12 promotion points for graduation from an EWOC school in July 1989.  Further, the Board concludes that he had previously been awarded the 12 promotion points on earlier DA Forms 3355.

2.  However, at the time of the preparation of a recomputation of his DA Form 3355 in April 1995, these promotion points were left off the form.  Therefore, he received only 612 promotion points rather than 624 promotion points.

3.  If he had received the total 624 promotion points, he would have met the Department of the Army announced promotion cutoff score for promotion to SSG in MOS 98G for 1 August 1995, and if otherwise eligible, he would have been so promoted.  This conclusion is supported, in essence, by the PERSCOM opinion.  

4.  If the Board takes positive action on his request and directs promotion to SSG effective 1 August 1995, he may be eligible for promotion consideration by one or more STAB’s for promotion to the rank of SFC since his date of rank of 1 August 1995 may have placed him in the announced zone of consideration to the rank of SFC under the centralized promotion selection system.  However, determination of administrative eligibility for promotion consideration should be made by the PERSCOM/Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC), who would also insure that his records are properly referred for promotion consideration by any STAB to which he is entitled.   

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by granting the individual concerned an April 1995 promotion point recomputation and that he be awarded an additional 12 promotion points for completion of an EWOC effective April 1995, as an exception to policy, with award of a total of 624 promotion points for this recomputation.  

2.  That following the corrective action recommended above, and unless otherwise not qualified for promotion, that necessary administrative action be taken by the EREC to promote the individual concerned to the rank of SSG, pay grade E-6, in MOS 98G, effective 1 August 1995 with a date of rank from that date.  

3.  Further, that upon promotion to the rank of SSG, with a date of rank of 
1 August 1995, that his records be reviewed to determine if he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to the rank of SFC on or after that date.  If so, his records should be referred to an appropriate STAB for standby promotion consideration.   

BOARD VOTE:  

_EMW___  __EWL__  __MVT__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__ERNEST M. WILLCHER_
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029833	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	131.03	
2.	131.04	
3.	131.05	
4.		
5.		
6.