PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:          3 February 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-05136
				   AR1999016851

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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.  In effect, the applicant requests that his DD Form 214 of 27 January 1990 indicate that his rank at the time of his discharge was Sergeant E-5, and that his reentry code was RE 1 vice RE 3C.  He also requests award of the Good Conduct Meal for this period of service. 

3.  In his initial application to this Board, the applicant stated that he entered the Army on 6 July 1981 and was discharged with an honorable characterization of service at his ETS (expiration of term of service) on 4 July 1984, with a reentry code of RE-1.  He reenlisted on 28 January 1987 and was discharged on his ETS on 27 January 1990, again with an honorable characterization of service, this time, however, with a reentry code of RE-3C.  In response to a recruiter’s questions, he stated that he had no problems in the Army, and that he was getting ready to enter an ROTC program, and needed to get this reentry code changed. 

4.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  An official of that agency states, in effect, that the applicant’s reentry code of RE-3C was   correct, because of his rank and years of service.  A copy of this opinion was furnished the applicant for possible rebuttal, and the applicant replied, stating that his reentry code was indeed correct; however, the problem was not the code as he had thought, but the fact that he should have been promoted to Sergeant E-5 prior to his discharge.  That promotion would have then changed his reentry code [to RE-1].  

5.  The applicant states that he went before a promotion board on 
15 September 1988, and was recommended for promotion in MOS 95B (military policeman).  He was supposed to be promoted on or about 1 January 1989.  He was overlooked for promotion because he was at a remote site working under cover with a drug suppression team.  He states that he met the cutoff score for promotion.  A promotion board worksheet (DA Form 3355) that the applicant submitted with his request shows that he was recommended for promotion by a valid promotion board of Frankfurt District, 2nd Region, CID Command, and had a total of 747 promotion points.  Attached to that worksheet was a request from the special agent in charge of the Fulda Resident Agency to the commander of the Frankfurt District, requesting a waiver of the requirement to appear before the promotion board without a SQT (skill qualification test) score.  That official stated that the applicant was not able to take the test because he was in Germany pending a compassionate reassignment approval to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) and stayed in that status for 7 months.  He was subsequently assigned to the 11th ACR, but attached for duty to that office [Fulda Resident Agency] in his primary MOS of 95B10, and because of this attachment his unit neglected to schedule the follow up SQT test.   
      
6.  The promotion point cutoff score for the MOS (military occupational specialty) in which he was recommended for promotion, MOS 95B, for 1 January  1989 was 742 points.  Eligible soldiers who held valid recommended list status as of 31 October 1998 and who met or exceeded the cutoff score could be promoted on 1 January 1989.

7.  The applicant served in the Army from 6 July 1981 and was discharged on     4 July 1984.  A 1986 enlisted evaluation report shows his primary MOS as 11C, and his secondary MOS as 95B/71L.  His DD Form 214 shows the same information, and also shows award of the Good Conduct Medal.   

8.  The applicant reenlisted in the Army on 28 January 1987 in MOS 11C, indirect fire infantryman, and was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  On 18 May 1987 the applicant was accepted for a position as a desk sergeant with the Fulda Military Community in Germany.  In June 1987 he was attached to the Fulda Resident Agency, Second Region, CID command, and performed duties as a military policeman and administrative/logistics specialist.  The applicant was assigned from a troop of the 11th Armored Cavalry (ACR) unit to the United States Military Community Activities (USMCA) in Fulda on 5 July 1988, with instructions that the Fulda CID office would be responsible for training, administration, etc.  In October 1988 he performed duty as a clerk typist with the USMCA in Fulda, and on 1 November was assigned to HHT of the 1st Squadron, 11th ACR as a clerk typist.  On 14 November 1988 he was assigned to A Troop of that unit as a mortar gunner, MOS 11C10. 

9.  On 25 March 1988 the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal (1st oak leaf cluster) by the 11th ACR for meritorious achievement during the period 6 January to 12 March 1988.  He was awarded the second oak leaf cluster to that medal on 26 September 1989.  

10.  The applicant’s records show that he completed various Army subcourses during the July, September, October, November 1988 time frame, and that the results were mailed to him and to his unit commander at the 11th ACR.  A           20 November 1989 service school academic evaluation report shows that he completed the combat lifesaver course (nonresident) from 7 December 1988 through 20 November 1989 and that the notice of that completion was mailed to his group leader at the 11th ACR.

11.  On 11 May 1989 the applicant was tested in his primary MOS of 11C, indirect fire infantryman.  The results of that test, forwarded to his command in June 1989, show that he received a score of 51 on this skill qualification test.  On 22 June 1989 the applicant receipted for a military identification card, to replace one that he lost.

12.  A 20 November 1989 personnel qualification record shows that the applicant was a Specialist Four, pay grade E-4, that his PMOS was 11C10, his duty MOS was 11C10, and that his SMOS was 95B10. 

13.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) indicates that he reviewed that record on 6 March 1989.  The applicant’s records shows that he was in Germany from May 1987 until his reassignment to Fort Jackson for separation in January 1990.  Orders were published on 19 October 1989 effecting this reassignment.  An installation clearance record shows that he cleared his organization, to include the military personnel office and the in service recruiter, on 5 January 1990.  

14.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he enlisted in the Army on 
28 January 1987, and was discharged in the rank of Specialist E-4 on               27 January 1990 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  He had 3 years of service and 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of prior service.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon              (2nd award), the Army Achievement Meal (2nd Oak Leaf Cluster), and the Army Good Conduct Medal, among other awards.  It does not show a second award of the Good Conduct Medal.    

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the
termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  

16.  Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 7, contains standards for promotion.  Paragraph 7-15 provides the eligibility requirements for promotion, and states in pertinent part, that soldiers may compete for promotion and be promoted only in their CPMOS (career progression MOS).  They must be fully qualified in the MOS in which recommended for promotion consideration.  The commander’s recommendation or approval affirms that the soldier is qualified in the CPMOS at the higher grade.  By accepting promotion consideration, the soldier affirms qualification in the CPMOS at the higher grade.  Competition for promotion in the soldier’s SMOS (secondary MOS) is not authorized.

17.  Paragraph 7-16 provides for promotion recommendations and states, in effect, that recommendations for promotion will be processed through the unit commander of the soldier’s parent organization. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served his country honorably and faithfully during his period of service which culminated on 27 January 1990.  He is entitled to the second award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. 

2.  The Board rejects the notion that the applicant was not promoted to Sergeant E-5 because he was at a remote site.  To the contrary, it appears from the evidence of record that the applicant was able to complete various military correspondence courses both before and after his appearance before a promotion board.  He received two awards, one before and one after the promotion board.  He reviewed his record some two months after notification by DA of the cutoff score for promotion to Sergeant in MOS 95B.  He was able to obtain a new identification card and take a SQT some four to five months after DA notification of the cutoff score.  It appears that both the applicant’s command and the applicant himself were concerned with his career.  It is reasonable to assume that a soldier who was career conscious and who appeared before a promotion board, in the ensuing months after that appearance, would inquire into his promotion status.  He had ample opportunity to do so.  Furthermore, the applicant cleared the military personnel office of his organization prior to his reassignment to the United States for discharge, and apparently at that time raised no voice concerning his promotion status.  

3.  Evidence contained in the applicant’s records indicate that his primary MOS was 11C10, and not 95B10, the MOS in which he competed for promotion.  The Board also notes that the promotion recommendation was submitted by the commander of the unit to which he was attached, with no indication that the recommendation was processed through his assigned unit.  Either one, or both of these reasons, may well have negated the promotion board results, and consequently, he would not have attained valid recommended list status.

4.  Accordingly, it is the considered opinion of this Board that there is good and sufficient reason, as indicated, why he was not promoted.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of that portion of his request concerning promotion.  Therefore, his reentry code of RE-3C on his DD Form 214 is considered correct.  

5.  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 by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd award) for the period 28 January 1987 to 27 January 1990.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__sac___  __fkm___  __mdm__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-01536/AR1999016851	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 107.00		
2. 110.00		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.