PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066111

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, 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 he be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 22 March 2001, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he made the cut-off for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 in February 2001, and was promoted by his battalion commander on 31 January 2001, with an effective date of 1 February 2001, because of a deployment to Kuwait and training holiday.  However, he was subsequently notified that that the promotion was revoked because he had not extended or reenlisted within the promotion month.  He goes on to state that he reenlisted on 22 March 2001 and on 23 March 2001, he received a notification from the personnel office informing him of the requirement to extend or reenlist in order to meet the service remaining requirement for promotion.  He then provided the personnel office with a copy of the reenlistment contract and orders were published on 27 March 2001, promoting him to the pay grade of E-6.  They were subsequently revoked because he had not reenlisted in February and he was informed that he would have to reappear before a promotion board to acquire list standing again.  He continues by stating that his promotion was revoked because officials did not fulfill their responsibility to notify him in writing in a timely manner that he had to meet the service remaining requirements within a specific timeframe or lose the promotion.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 8 January 1993 for a period of 3 years and training as a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) crewman.  He successfully completed his training, remained on active duty through successive reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 July 1997.

5.  On 1 February 2001, the applicant met the requirements for promotion to the pay grade of E-6.  However, to accept the promotion, the applicant had to have 12 months of service remaining.  His expiration of term of service (ETS) at that time was 14 December 2001.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 February 2001, however, those orders were revoked because he had been promoted prior to meeting the service remaining requirements.

6.  The applicant reenlisted on 22 March 2001 in the pay grade of E-6 for a period of 3 years and orders were published on 27 March 2001, again promoting him to the pay grade of E-6.  Those orders were subsequently revoked on 19 July 2001, because the applicant had not reenlisted in February 2001. 

7.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Promotions Branch, which opined, in effect, that the applicant met the promotion cut-off score for 1 February 2001 and was required to be notified in writing that he must extend or reenlist to meet the service remaining requirement to accept the promotion within the promotion month.  There was no such notice made to the applicant and he reenlisted on 22 March 2001.  He was subsequently promoted, but the promotion was revoked because he had not taken the required action within the promotion month in accordance with the applicable regulation.  The PERSCOM officials opined that since there was no evidence that he had been properly notified of the requirement to extend or reenlist, that he should be granted an exception to policy to accept the promotion effective the day he reenlisted (22 March 2001).  The opinion was provided to the applicant and he concurred.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures for managing the enlisted promotion system.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the promotion authority must notify soldiers who meet Headquarters Department of the Army cut-off scores, of the requirement to reenlist or extend to meet the service remaining requirements for the promotion.  The requirement must be met during the month of promotion and the notification must be in writing.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the Board agrees with the opinion of the PERSCOM that the applicant should be reinstated to the promotion standing list and promoted to the pay grade of E-6 because of the Department’s failure to timely notify him of the requirement to extend or reenlist within the promotion month, the Board does not agree that he should be promoted effective 22 March 2001, the date he met the service remaining requirement for promotion.

2.  Using the logic of the PERSCOM that had the applicant been properly and timely notified, the Board sees no reason why he could not have reenlisted sooner and been promoted on 1 February 2001, as he originally was.

3.  Therefore, given that the applicant reenlisted before he was notified, it is apparent that it was his intent to do so all along.  Accordingly, the Board finds that had he been properly and timely notified in accordance with established regulatory guidance, he would have reenlisted earlier and would have been properly promoted on 1 February 2001.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to grant him an exception to policy to be promoted effective 1 February 2001, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances from that date.

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

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by promoting the individual concerned to the pay grade of E-6, as an exception to policy, effective 1 February 2001, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances from that date. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__dh____  ___rvo __  __rjw____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066111	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.0000/PROM	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.