PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           8 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031284

	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	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 be adjusted to 1 September 1998.

3.  The applicant states that she handcarried copies of documents giving her additional promotion points to the Personnel Administration Center (PAC) in May 1998, in time to be added to her promotion packet in June 1998.  However, the PAC lost the paperwork.  By the time she resubmitted the paperwork and her company commander signed her Promotion Point Worksheet, it was 2 July 1998. Her promotion points were adjusted to 787 in the month of July 1998 to be effective 90 days later (1 October).  Had those points been added when she initially submitted them, by June 1998, she would have made the cut-off score on 1 September 1998.  Her initial promotion point paperwork was eventually found in the back of one of the PAC clerks’ desks.  He is now a prisoner at Fort Leavenworth, KS.  Through no fault of her own she was denied promotion to SSG.

4.  The applicant’s military records are not available.  The information contained herein was obtained from documents provided by the applicant.

5.  Around December 1995, the applicant was recommended for promotion to SSG in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A.  Apparently on 29 May 1998, she delivered copies of her Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, Record Firing Scorecard, and a college transcript to her PAC.  The addition of the points  shown by these documents would have increased her promotion point total to 787.  These documents were lost, resubmitted by her on or about 24 June 1998 and finally processed by the Enlisted Promotions Section, 502d Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) in July 1998.

6.  On 1 September 1998, the cut-off score for promotion to SSG in MOS 92A dropped to 787.  The applicant could not be promoted since her adjusted point total would not become effective until 1 October 1998, by which time the cut-off score increased.  

7.  On 9 February 1999, the applicant’s company commander requested an exception to policy so she could be promoted.  He stated that the applicant complied with all the procedures of the unit in submitting a re-evaluation packet.  It was misplaced through no fault of her own and was later found in a file maintained by a PAC soldier convicted by court-martial.  Her chain of command recommended approval of the request for exception to policy and it was sent to the 502d PSB.  The 502d PSB returned the request without action because the error did not occur at the Enlisted Promotions Section but at the unit.  

8.  The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 April 1999.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part it states that soldiers will continue to be eligible for promotion based on their old promotion point score until recomputed scores become effective.  The new score becomes effective on the first day of the third month following the recomputation month.

10.  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 although it was clear the applicant’s promotion points occurred prior to June 1998, she has not provided any documentation, such as a DA Form 200, Record of Transmittal (forwarding the documents from the PAC to the PSB) to substantiate she submitted her points prior to July 1998. 

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

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant turned in copies of documents to her battalion PAC in May 1998 per all procedures of her unit that would have increased her promotion point total to 787.  It was the PAC’s job to forward the documents to the PSB so the points could be added to her promotion packet.  The PAC failed to do so because it lost track of her packet.  That failure caused the applicant to not be promoted to SSG on 1 September 1998.

2.  It is not reasonable to expect the applicant to provide a DA Form 200 to show her points were submitted to the PSB prior to July 1998.  A DA Form 200 could not have been prepared because the PAC lost her packet.  The Army established the PAC system (in the past, the unit clerk system) to be the knowledgeable, competent link between the soldier and the Army’s personnel system.  If that system errs due to incompetence, inattention to detail or simply poor customer service, the individual soldier should not be made to pay for that error.

3.  In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the advisory opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below:

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  showing that the promotion packet of the individual concerned was updated in June 1998 to add the appropriate additional promotion points raising her promotion point total to 787, effective September 1998;
     b.  showing that the individual concerned was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 September 1998, when the promotion point cut-off score for her primary MOS dropped to 787, with an effective date of 1 September 1998; and

     c.  paying to the individual concerned any back pay due her from 1 September 1998 to the present for this promotion.

BOARD VOTE:  

__rvo___  __eja___  __ewl___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031284	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000308	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.