MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034866

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  That his records be corrected to show that he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 effective 1 February 1999.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the initials on a DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet) are not his.  The falsification of his initials denied him an opportunity in November 1998 to correct his DA Form 3355.  The DA Form 3355 that went forward did not reflect his increased promotion points due to an increased army physical fitness test (APFT) score.  The increase gave him a total of 676 points, which exceeded the 1 February 1999 promotion point cutoff score of 672 points.  He states he has been unfairly denied promotion to SSG.

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

He has continuously served on active duty since he entered the Regular Army on 5 September 1984.  He is currently serving, in the rank of sergeant/E-5, on active duty as a 92G20 (Battalion Food Service Sergeant).

On 26 October 1998 a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) was prepared reflecting that the applicant had scored 300 points.

On 2 November 1998 a DA Form 3355 was prepared using the applicant’s old APFT score of 280 points and a total promotion point score of 666 points.  

On 23 November 1998 the NCOIC, Enlisted Promotions, Personnel Service Battalion (PSB), Fort Riley, Kansas, authenticated a memorandum that reflects that the applicant’s reevaluation score for November 1998 was 666 points and those points would be effective 1 February 1999.

On 21 January 1999 the applicant requested that the promotion point adjustment submitted to the PSB in January 1999 be back-dated to his November 1998 reevaluation, and that he be promoted effective 1 February 1999.

On 21 January 1999 a Promotion Point Adjustment form was prepared by the PSB to adjust the applicant’s total score to 675.

On 21 January 1999 the company commander prepared a memorandum, which stated that through no fault of his own the applicant’s promotion points were updated incorrectly.  Therefore, the applicant should have been promoted from SGT to SSG effective 1 February 1999.

On 3 March 2000 the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) denied the applicant’s request for a retroactive promotion.  PERSCOM acknowledged that the applicant claimed that the verifying initials on the DA Form 3355 were not his and he was not given an opportunity to review the document prior to its submission.  It was pointed out that the applicant’s request contained no substantiating documents that the initials were not his and the information on the document was verified by the company commander.  It also pointed out that the applicant did not follow his promotion action through to completion.  The promotion regulation points out that points left off the DA Form 3355 will become effective the first day of the second month following adjustment and will not result in a retroactive promotion.  In accordance with PERSCOM guidance, dropping off source documents at the unit or battalion S1 does not constitute a request for reevaluation and that soldiers must complete a DA Form 3355.  Soldiers must be proactive and not rely on someone else to ensure their actions are properly prepared and processed.

On 10 December 1999 the applicant responded to the PERSCOM indorsement.
He commented that he was aware of the requirement to review the DA          Form 3355, but he was denied that opportunity.  Further, he argued that Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) and the DA Form 3355 require the “most recent” APFT score and not just a valid score as put forth by PERSCOM.

Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 3-24 provides, in pertinent part, that the promotion points adjustments will not result in retroactive promotion.

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

1.  The DA Form 3355 on record appears to be initialed by the applicant and signed by the company commander and the personnel sergeant.  The applicant states he did not initial the document; however, his statement is not supported by any evidence.  If the initials of the applicant were falsified, then the commander was presented with a falsified official document.  Without evidence to the contrary the DA Form 3355 on record is accepted as a valid document.

2.  The governing regulation that provides instructions and guidance on adjusting promotion points is very clear that such adjustments will not lead to retroactive promotions.  Retroactive promotions can have a far reaching negative impact on the enlisted promotion system.  Therefore, the applicant’s request for retroactive promotion must be denied.

3.  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

_rjw_____  ___js  ___  ____rwa_  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034866	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.