PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  20 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999032354

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		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, the removal of a Staff Sergeant (SSG) promotion revocation order from his record and standby advisory board for promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC).

3.  The applicant, a SSG in the Regular Army, states that during a review of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) in February 1998, prior to the record being viewed by a pay grade E-7 promotion board, he discovered in his OMPF a 
9 February 1996 revocation order revoking his 26 January 1996 promotion order for SSG.  He did not previously know of the existence of the revocation order.  He has been a pay grade E-6 receiving pay grade E-6 pay since the effective date, 1 February 1996, stated on his 26 January 1996 promotion order had been published.  It appears that the revocation order was never placed into effect.  After the discovery of the revocation order in 1998, he inquired at the revocation order issuing Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) in Germany about the order but could find no one that could explain the order.  He did state that prior to his deployment to Bosnia from Germany in January 1996, he had received an Article 15 for taking his wife to the airport to return home while he was deployed.  He does not remember the article violation but said that the punishment was suspended and then closed favorably.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 August 1986 and has served continuously from that date to the present.  His Military Occupational Skills have been 13B, Cannon Crewman, and 74F and 74B, Software Analyst, in which he currently serves.  He rose to the rank and pay grade of Staff Sergeant E-6 effective 1 February 1996.  He is currently assigned to the 321st Material Management Command as a pay grade E-6 active duty soldier serving in a Reserve unit.

5.  The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6 by orders 025-012, published on 26 January 1996, by the 90th PSB, Bad Kreuznach, Germany, as directed by Headquarters, Department of the Army.  The 90th PSB published order 040-004 on 9 February 1996, revoking the initial promotion order.  No explanation for the revocation was given on the order.  This order appears to have never been placed into effect as the applicant’s pay and personnel records show his promotion to pay grade E-6 but do not show any reduction.  Both the promotion order and revocation order are shown on the applicant’s OMPF Service Computation Data section.  There are no flagging actions or disciplinary actions in his OMPF or his field personnel file.  There is no reason shown in his OMPF or field personnel file to justify the promotion revocation order.

6.  During the time of the publishing of the promotion and revocation orders, the applicant was deployed from Bad Krueznach, Germany, to Bosnia.  When he returned from Bosnia, he immediately underwent a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) back to the United States.

7.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, paragraph 1-11a states, “If the soldier’s final report (suspension of favorable personnel actions) is closed “favorable” and he or she would have been promoted while the suspension of the favorable personnel actions was in effect, provided otherwise eligible, he or she will be promoted.  Effective date and date of rank will be that of his or her peers.”

8.  A check of pay grade E-7 promotion boards shows that the applicant was considered for promotion to pay grade E-7 in 1998 and 1999 but not selected for promotion.  The promotion boards are given edited OMPF microfiche that do not include the Service Computation Data section.  The promotion board did not see the applicant’s pay grade E-6 promotion orders or his promotion revocation orders.

9.  The Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotion Branch, provided information that the applicant was on the Monthly SGT/SSG Promotion Selection List for 1 February 1996.  Records also show that a Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action was closed favorably.  It is PERSCOMs opinion that the applicant’s promotion revocation order should be rescinded.  The applicant agreed with this opinion.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is nothing in the applicant’s personnel records to support or justify the promotion revocation order.  According to the applicant, the only possible explanation for the revocation order would have been his suspended Article 15 punishment and flagging action which was resolved favorably before he returned from Bosnia.  Based on this and according to AR 600-8-19, his promotion should have been reestablished effective on the original date of promotion.  The promotion revocation order should be rescinded and expunged from the applicant’s OMPF.

2.  The Department of the Army SFC promotion boards have not seen the applicant’s pay grade E-6 promotion order or revocation order so that these documents have not affected the promotion board selection decisions concerning the applicant.  Consequently, there is no necessity to reboard the applicant for pay grade E-7 promotion consideration.

3.  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 for the individual concerned by rescinding his SSG promotion revocation order and expunging it from his OMPF.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__sc____  ___kw___  ___ac___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Samuel A. Crumpler____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032354	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000720	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.129.02	Revocation of Orders	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.