199.00 Promotion Program - Promotion date
Recommendation of the Board for Correction on Request of: xxxxxxxx, Case No. 108-89
Xxxxxxxxx filed an application with the Board for Correction Xxxxxx 1989. He initially had requested promotion to Grade 0-5, with pay and allowances retroactive to Xxxx 1986 or to Xxxx 1987. On Xxxxxx 1990, after applying to the Board, he was promoted to 05 through the regular promotion process. Therefore, the remaining issue the Board had to consider was whether his promotion should be made retroactive to Xxxx 1986 or to Xxxx 1987, as he requested.
Xxxxxxxxx had contended that a promotion retroactive to Xxxx 1986, would compensate him for not being promoted due to having worked in a billet for which he was not qualified and for which he had not been trained. He also had contended that a promotion retroactive to Xxxx 1987, would compensate him for not being promoted due to unfavorable COER evaluations while in that billet.
The merits of Xxxxxxxxx request have been reviewed on the basis of the entire record. The Board concluded that his assignment had been unfair since it required the distinct skills of an Xxxxxx which he did not have, and that in the interest of justice, he should receive some relief. However, the record was in dispute as to whether he had been offered and refused training in radiological procedures which could have enhanced his skills. In addition, the Board recognized that a promotion was not certain even had he been in another assignment and his COERS been more favorable. For these reasons, the Board decided not to grant the full relief requested.
Accordingly, the Board recommends that Xxxxxxxxx be granted partial relief. Approval of this recommendation requires that his record be corrected to make Xxxxxxxxx 1988, the effective date of his promotion to 05, halfway between Xxxx 1987, and Xxxxxx 1990, his actual promotion date. Attachment 1, Section II includes the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on his request.
We certify that this recommendation reflects the views and action taken by the Board on Xxxxxxxxx request, as contained in Attachment 1, and that it has been concurred in by the Board members.
We certify, further, that the Case Record, shown as Attachment 2, contains all of the documentation received on Xxxxxxxxx request and that, in addition to applicable statutes, regulations and policies, it has been considered by the Board in arriving at this recommendation.
Finally, we certify that a quorum of Board members was present on xxxxx 1991, when his request was considered.
If you approve, please sign below.
Robert W. McKinney, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Safety Office of Research Services, NIH
(1) Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
(2) Case Record
Reviewed and Approved:
I hereby approve the recommendation of the Board for Correction on the request of Xxxxxxxxx received and considered in accordance with the authority of Section 221a(a) (12) of the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 96-76, as amended) and 42 U.S.C. 213a(a) (12).
Wilford J. Forbush
Director, Office of Management
The Board found that:
- Corps authority to select and assign an officer to a billet for which less than fully qualified requiring training to become qualified was not at issue;
- Xxxxxxxxx had concurred with the COER ratings he received;
- His performances in both the Xxxxxxxx/Xxxxxx and the Deputy Director billets could have supported promotion to an 0-5; and
- It was impossible to know whether he would have been promoted had his reassignment been in xxxxx or had he been appointed to the Deputy Director position or had his COERS been more favorable.
The Board also found that:
- Xxxxxxxxx billet description required distinct technical skills he did not have. Nonetheless, his COER evaluations expected him to have had them;
- His overall rating had declined from exceptional, when he last worked as a Xxxxx, to competent while he worked as a Xxxxxxxx/Xxxxx. This rating improved to well above average while Deputy Director;
- COER comments by his supervisors had expressed concern about his assignment and a desire that he be placed in another billet. They continued to recommend him for promotion while stating they would not select him in his current position (in their view, he was not being utilized in a billet for which qualified); and
- The record did not show he had been offered or had received training in radiological procedures immediately upon his reassignment. Allegedly, an offer of training came after he had been in the billet for some time but declined to avoid being away from his family.
The Board concluded that Xxxxxxxxx assignment had been unfair since it required the distinct skills of an xxx xxxxxx which he did not have, and that in the interest of justice, he should receive some relief. However, the record was in dispute as to whether he had been offered and refused training in xxxxxxxx procedures which could have enhanced his skills. In addition, the Board recognized that a promotion was not certain even had he been in another assignment and his COERS been more favorable. For these reasons, the Board decided not to grant the full relief requested.
The Board recommended that Xxxxxxxxx record be corrected to make Xxxxxxxxx xx 1988, the effective date of his promotion to 05, halfway between Xxxxxx 1987, and Xxxxxx 1990, his actual promotion date. This correction will advance him credit in his current grade and qualify him for future promotion at an earlier date. The Corps will inform the Board of the amount of retroactive pay and allowances to which he will be entitled, and any adjustments to his current pay and allowances, as a result of this correction.
Anyone wishing to obtain an un-redacted copy of any of the decisions should submit a request for the un-redacted decision under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Such requests should be directed to the PHS FOIA Office, Parklawn Building, Room 17 A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone 301-443-5252; fax 301-443-0925.