PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           9 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031272

	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.  

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 that her date of rank to Sergeant (SGT), E-5 be adjusted to August 1998.

3.  The applicant states that she made the SGT, E-5 promotion cutoff score in May 1998.  While attending the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), she was released for medical reasons.  She returned in August and completed the course.  Due to an administrative error she was promoted in October 1998 instead of August 1998.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she was recommended for promotion to SGT in January 1998.  She met the cutoff score for promotion for     1 April 1998 but had not yet attended PLDC.

5.  The applicant started PLDC on 28 May 1998 but was released prior to graduation after receiving a physical profile.  She re-attended PLDC on 8 July 1998 and graduated on 6 August 1998.  She was promoted to SGT effective        1 October 1998 with a date of rank of 1 October 1998.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part, it provides that, effective 1 October 1992, soldiers were required to be graduates of PLDC prior to promotion to SGT.  Soldiers are allowed to compete for promotion to SGT but cannot be promoted to SGT until completion of PLDC.  Soldiers who met a cutoff score for SGT after 1 October 1992, but were not PLDC graduates, would be promoted effective the date of graduation from PLDC. 

7.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command.  That office noted that the applicant had been erroneously removed from the Monthly Promotion Selection By-Name List, effective 1 April 1998, based on being released from PLDC due to a medical profile.  She should have remained on the List and been promoted to SGT upon graduating from PLDC on 6 August 1998.

8.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment.  She did not respond within the given time frame.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board agrees with the advisory opinion that the applicant was erroneously removed from the Monthly Promotion Selection By-Name List effective 1 April 1998.  Had she not been erroneously removed, she would have been eligible for promotion to SGT on 6 August 1998 when she graduated from PLDC.

2.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the applicant was promoted to SGT, E-5 effective 6 August 1998 with a date of rank of 6 August 1998.

2.  That the applicant be paid all pay and allowances due her as a result of the aforementioned correction.

BOARD VOTE:  

__rvo___  __dsj___  __cjs___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031272	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.