MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078762

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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:  In effect, that her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 2002 be back dated to make her eligible for promotion to the pay grade of E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her promotion progress was hindered until the Board, in its previous decision (AR1999027844), granted her request to backdate her DOR to the pay grade of E-6.  She goes on to state that the injustice of having negative, adverse comments on her evaluation reports has caused her to be placed behind her peers for promotion consideration.  Inasmuch as the Board has recognized this injustice, her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 should be adjusted as her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 was.

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

On 29 March 2000, the Board considered the applicant's request for adjustment of her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 and promotion to the pay grade of E-7 (AR1999027844).  

The Board determined that based on her successful, albeit delayed appeal of three noncommissioned officer evaluation reports dated from 1990 to 1994, she would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6 in October 1990 instead of October 1999.  The Board directed that her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be adjusted to 1 October 1990, with entitlement to back pay and allowances to 24 June 1997, the date she began to appeal the actions to correct the evaluation reports.

In regards to her promotion to the pay grade of E-7, the Board determined that consideration for promotion to the pay grade of by a standby board would disadvantage the applicant because she would not have been evaluated as an  E-6 for a sufficient amount of time and she would not meet eligibility requirements for promotion to the next higher grade.

The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 2002.

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

1.  At the time the Board previously considered the applicant's request to have her DOR for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 back-dated, the Board determined that since she was selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 the first time she was considered after the contested evaluation reports were removed, that in all likelihood, she would have been promoted had the reports not been in her records when she was previously considered and not selected.
2.  The Board also gave her entitlement to back pay and allowances; however, the Board recognized that the applicant was also a contributing factor (delay in appeal) in the ability to correct the problem completely and limited that entitlement to the date she began her appeal of the evaluation reports.  

3.  While the intent of the Board was to make her as whole as possible, given the circumstances of the case, the Board determined that she should not be considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 as a result of the Board's decision because it would place her at a disadvantage.

4.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 approximately 26 months after the Board directed the correction of her DOR.  Accordingly, it appears that the previous actions by the Board to get the applicant as close to back on track as possible, considering the circumstances, was appropriate.

5.  At the time the board made the decision in her previous case to grant relief in the form of an adjustment of her DOR, it was not intended to be a perpetual cycle of DOR adjustments that would apply to each grade in which she was promoted. The adjustment was intended to be a one-time fix that was consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.  While it is desirable to always make a person completely whole when an error or injustice occurs, unfortunately it is not always possible and the Board must make its judgment of the best course of action to accomplish what it believes is fair and equitable. 

6.  The Board considered the applicant's arguments in her previous and current case and made its judgment of the best course of action to take in regards to her promotion progress and entitlements.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to further back-date her DOR for promotion to the pay of E-7.

7.  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

__fe ____  ___mt___  __le_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078762	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  315	131.0500/DOR	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.