MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 July 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998014399

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 his records be corrected to show that he was promoted to Sergeant First Class, E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  That in the fall of 1986 he was selected by a promotion board to fill a vacant E-7 slot.  He held this slot until 16 June 1989 when he was discharged by the Qualitative Retention Board (QRB).  The board released all members with 20 years of service over the age of 50 unless they were of the highest rank.  If he could have stayed another year he would have received his promotion to E-7 and received retirement pay at that rank when he is eligible in August 1998.  He completed his 77W30 school in 1987.  He had the time in grade to be promoted.  He received a “promote before peers” rating in his commander’s promotion recommendation.  Supporting documentation provided is as listed on the DD For 149.

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

He initially enlisted in the Army National Guard on 21 January 1957.  After serving in the U. S. Army Reserve from 5 March 1977 through 4 March 1984, he reenlisted in the Minnesota Army National Guard on 10 March 1984.  He had received his notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) in July 1983.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 11 July 1986.

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record shows his duty military occupational specialty (MOS) as 77W30, Water Supply Supervisor, with Company A, 47th Supply and Transport (S & T) Battalion, Camp Ripley, MN from 31 December 1986 until his discharge.  It also shows he completed the 77W course (11 credit hours) in 1987 through the Army Correspondence Course Program and was awarded 77W as his primary MOS on 15 May 1988.

The applicant’s non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER) for the period October 1985 through September 1986 shows that his primary MOS was 51H30 and his duty MOS was 51H30.  In part IV, Evaluation of Potential, his rater and indorser rated his potential as “Promote ahead of peers.”  His indorser made the comment “He is not recommended for a higher level assignment at this time.”

On 1 November 1986, the applicant appeared before a promotion board and was recommended for promotion.  The NGB Form 4100-R, Promotion Recommendation and Board Report, shows his duty and primary MOSs as 51H30.  The NGB Form 4100-R noted he had 4 months time in grade and that 21 months time in grade was required for the recommended grade.  The NGB Form 
4102-R, Board Recommendation, indicates that the applicant was recommended for promotion to Sergeant First Class, E-7 in MOS 77N40 (apparently an error and meant to be 77W, since there is no such MOS as 77N) but also notes that he must be MOS qualified prior to promotion if selected and that time in grade was also a factor for promotion.

On 5 December 1986, Headquarters, 47th S & T Battalion notified the Division Support Command (DISCOM) that the applicant had been selected for the Water Supply Supervisor (i.e., 77W40) position and that the selection met with the approval of the battalion commander and was consistent with the board recommendation.

On 18 December 1986, the DISCOM requested approval of the Promotion/Screening Board action from the Adjutant General, State of Minnesota.  On 3 February 1987, the Office of the Adjutant General approved the ranking panel action as it applied to the applicant, provided he was qualified in all aspects of the higher grade and position to which promotion was contemplated.  The applicant was required to be formally trained in MOS 77W or meet the qualifications specified in Army Regulation 611-200 before promotion.  The approval for the action was valid for a period of 12 months from the date of the board recommendation.  

On 24 March 1987, the applicant was recommended for continued retention by the QRB.

The applicant’s NCO-ER for the period October 1986 through September 1987, shows that his primary MOS was 51H30 and his duty MOS was 77W40.  In Part IV, his rater and indorser rated his potential as “Promote with peers.”  His rater commented “___is, at this time, not capable of any higher rank.  He does not show supervisory skills.”  His indorser commented “___needs leadership coaching.  He is not recommended for any more schools or additional supervisory responsibilities.”

On 24 September 1987, the applicant completed the 77W30 Basic Non-commissioned Officer Course (BNCOC).  He was awarded 77W30 as his primary MOS on 15 May 1988 through orders published by the 47th S&T Battalion.  

The applicant’s NCO-ER for the period October 1987 through September 1988 show his primary MOS as 77W30 and his duty MOS as 77W30.  In Part IV, his rater rated his potential as “Promote ahead of peers” and commented “___should check into furthering his knowledge.”  His indorser rated his potential as “Promote with peers” and commented “…he should enroll into a vigorous leadership course.”

In 1989, the applicant was not selected for retention by the QRB and was discharged from the Army National Guard and transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 16 June 1989.

Army Regulation 135-205 prescribes policies, responsibilities and procedures for the Qualitative Retention Program (QRP).  Chapter 4 describes the QRP objectives, responsibilities, applicability and procedures.  The QRP will ensure that only the best qualified soldiers are retained beyond 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay.  The Chief, National Guard Bureau will monitor and support the QRP for the Army National Guard.  The procedures provide for a biennial review of the military personnel records of all soldiers with the required service.  The purpose of the review is to determine retention potential and acceptability for reenlistment or extension of enlistment.

National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 establishes standards, policies and procedures for the management of Army National Guard enlisted soldiers in areas including personnel management and promotion, appointment and reduction.  Chapter 5 provides guidance and prescribes policy and procedures for regulating and establishing the military career of an Army National Guard enlisted member. It states in pertinent part that a primary MOS can be awarded upon qualification in accordance with Army Regulation 611-201; successful completion of MOS training offered by an MOS producing service school or training center (a waiver of MOS formal school training requirements can be approved by the appropriate training center Commander or school Commandant), successful completion of an MOS producing course or approved supervised on-the-job training program or successful completion of reclassification training.  The State Adjutant General is the reclassification authority for MOSs that require formal school training.

NGR 600-200, Chapter 6 prescribes the promotion policy and applies the provisions for the advancement, promotion, and reduction of all enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard.  The regulation at the time stated that a member recommended for promotion must be qualified in the MOS for which the promotion was being made.  The time in grade requirement for promotion recommendation to Sergeant First Class was 21 months.  Promotion authorities could waive not more than one-half of the prescribed time in grade.  No exceptions were authorized.  Recommending officers were to ensure that all promotion criteria established by this regulation were met by the soldier.  

Army Regulation 611-201 prescribes the enlisted MOS classification structure of the United States Army.  In pertinent part, it states that Water Treatment Specialists, MOS 77W, must possess, among other qualifications, mandatory formal training or meet the civilian acquired skills criteria listed in Army Regulation 601-210.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-4, the Army Formal Schools Catalog, is the official source of information of formal courses of instruction offered at active U. S. Army Schools and Training Centers.  The NCO Academies, including the Quartermaster NCO Academy, are listed as separate institutions and not as service schools or training centers.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army National Guard Bureau (NGB) (SEE ATTACHED).  The NGB noted that regulation requires all members with over 20 years of qualifying service to be reviewed by a QRB.  Minnesota assured the NGB that age was not a factor in their QRBs; however, mathematically, a number of individuals with more than 20 years of creditable service will be over 50 and some will inevitably be “not selected for retention.”  The NGB also noted that the applicant was not qualified for promotion in MOS 77W when the promotion board convened.  He did not hold the MOS for which he was recommended and he fell 8 months short of the minimum time in grade requirement for promotion recommendation to Sergeant First Class.  The NGB noted it could not support the applicant’s request for relief as there was no evidence that he was unjustly denied a promotion or unfairly eliminated by the QRB.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  He responded with a copy of a note he sent to the office of his Senator.

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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The Board concludes that the applicant was not qualified to be recommended for promotion to Sergeant First Class in MOS 77W on 1 November 1986 and his actual recommendation for promotion, appearance before a promotion board, and selection for promotion by the promotion board was administratively flawed.  He was recommended for promotion in MOS 77W but he was not awarded that MOS until 15 May 1988.  The minimum number of months time in grade he must have had to appear before a promotion board was 11 months; he had only 3 months time in grade in November 1986.  No exceptions to this waiver requirement were allowed.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant did not work as a 77W40, Water Treatment Supervisor (an E-7 position) from 1986 until his discharge in 1989.  The only document that shows he worked as a 77W40 was an annual NCO-ER for the period October 1986 through September 1987.  This report had numerous negative comments on it, including the comment “___is, at this time, not capable of any higher rank.”
4.  The Board concludes that the awarding of MOS 77W was also administratively flawed.  Army Regulation 611-201 states that Water Treatment Specialists, MOS 77W, must possess, among other qualifications, mandatory formal training.  NGR 600-200 states that an MOS will be awarded upon successful completion of MOS training offered by an MOS producing service school or training center  (a waiver of MOS formal school training requirements can be approved by the appropriate training center Commander or school Commandant).  The State Adjutant General is the reclassification authority for MOSs that require formal school training.  While the applicant provides documentation to show that he attended the 77W BNCOC given by the Quartermaster NCO Academy, that institution is not an MOS-producing service school or training center and is not authorized to award MOSs.  The time gap between the completion of BNCOC (30 October 1987) and the awarding of MOS 77W (15 May 1988) indicates the applicant may have been awarded MOS 77W after a period of supervised on-the-job training program or successful completion of reclassification training.  However, the MOS orders were published by the 47th S & T Battalion, whereas the State Adjutant General is the reclassification authority for MOSs that require formal school training.

5.  The Board notes that the Office of the Adjutant General approved the ranking panel action as it applied to the applicant, provided he was qualified in all aspects of the higher grade and position to which promotion was contemplated.  The applicant was required to be formally trained in MOS 77W or meet the qualifications specified in Army Regulation 611-200 before promotion.  The approval for the action was valid for a period of 12 months from the date of the board recommendation (1 November 1986).  He was not awarded primary MOS 77W until 15 May 1988, 18 months after the date of the board recommendation.

6.  The Board concludes that there is no inconsistency in the applicant being selected for retention by 1987 QRB and non-selected for retention by the 1989 QRB.  The Army’s drawdown period began about 1989 and retention standards were considerably tightened up.  The applicant’s NCO-ERs for the periods ending September 1987 and September 1988 included such comments as “___is, at this time, not capable of any higher rank.  He does not show supervisory skills;” “___needs leadership coaching.  He is not recommended for any more schools or additional supervisory responsibilities;” and “…he should enroll into a vigorous leadership course.”  The Board concludes that it was due to comments such as these that resulted in the QRB determining that he was no longer among the “best qualified for continued retention.”

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

__cmf___  __tnk___  __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998014399	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990722	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	136.07	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.