PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:        22 October 1998       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09367

	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:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		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 retroactive promotion to Sergeant First Class E-7, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and property; and attendance at the advanced NCO course. 

3.  The applicant states that she was not selected by the 1996 and 1997 Sergeant First Class promotion board because of material error; and not informed of the reason for her nonselection for promotion.  She states that she was again not allowed to attend the NCO advanced course.
 
4.  The applicant’s military records show that she is on active duty as an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) soldier.  She was promoted to Staff Sergeant on 
2 December 1990 and completed the basic NCO Course (BNCOC) on 
6 March 1992 at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.  A 7 August 1993 academic evaluation report indicates that she attended an advanced NCO course (ANCOC) at an Army Reserve NCO Academy between 10 July 1993 and 
7 August 1993, but failed to achieve course standards.  The applicant’s senior raters, on three NCO evaluation reports, have since recommended that she attend the advanced NCO course.  

5.  On 25 March 1996 the Chief of Promotions at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) at St. Louis indicated that a standby advisory board recommended that the applicant’s appeal of her bar to reenlistment under the qualitative management program be approved.  The DA DCSPER approved that recommendation on 22 March 1996.  She was informed that she would be eligible for promotion consideration on the April 1997 USAR Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection Board.

6.  On 29 May 1997 she requested standby advisory board consideration for promotion to Sergeant First Class.  In her request she stated that there were documents missing from her promotion packet.  She stated that she had successfully appealed a bar to reenlistment, that the bar was approved for removal in March 1996 but was not noted in her official file.  She stated that she had failed selection for promotion because the bar had not been removed from her file, and the missing documents were not included in her official file.  The applicant includes a copy of a 24 June 1997 order awarding her the Good Conduct Medal (3d award), a copy of a 20 October 1995 certificate showing successful completion of an advanced level sustainment training technical course, and a copy of two NCO evaluation reports, one ending in August 1991, and one ending in August 1992, all of which she indicates were missing from her official file, and which she hand carried to the promotion board.

7.  On 31 July 1997 the Chief of Promotions at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) at St. Louis denied her request, stating that there was no material error.

8.  On 22 September 1997 the Chief of Promotions at PERSOM replied to a member of congress concerning the applicant’s inquiry questioning her nonselection for promotion.  That official informed the MC that selection boards were not tasked to itemize specific reasons for selection or nonselection for promotion, and it was impossible to pinpoint her reason for nonselection.  

9.  In a 27 June 1998 advisory opinion, the Director of the Full Time Support Management Directorate at St. Louis stated that the applicant had been selected for promotion to Sergeant First Class by the 1998 USAR AGR promotion selection board.

10.  Information obtained from an official of the PERSCOM Promotions at St. Louis on 7 October 1998 revealed that the applicant’s records were not reviewed and she was not considered by the 1996 Sergeant First Class selection board, more than likely because of the short span of time between the approval of her appeal of her bar to reenlistment on 22 March 1996 and the 9 April1996 convening date of that board.

11.  Information obtained from that same official on 13 October 1998 revealed that the criteria for consideration for promotion to Sergeant First Class by the 1996 selection board was a date of rank of 31 March 1993 or earlier; for the 1997 selection board, a date of rank of 31 May 1994 or earlier.  That official also stated that the applicant’s personnel qualification record (PQR) was annotated to show award of the Good Conduct Medal (3d Award) and to show that she completed the advanced level sustainment training tech course.  This information and the two NCO evaluation reports (one ending in August 1991 and one ending in August 1992) were available to the 1997 promotion board.  That official also confirmed that a soldier selected for promotion to Sergeant First Class is also concurrently selected for attendance at ANCOC, if that course has not been completed.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotion policies and criteria. Paragraph 4-16 outlines the rules for processing standby advisory board consideration and states, in effect, that standby advisory boards are convened to consider records of those [soldiers] from the primary and secondary zones not reviewed by a regular board.

13.  Paragraph 4-7c, states that a Staff Sergeant must be a graduate of ANCOC prior to promotion to Sergeant First Class.
 CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant should have been considered for promotion to Sergeant First Class by the 1996 promotion selection board.  She should be considered by a standby advisory board under 1996 promotion eligibility criteria.

2.  The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the 1997 promotion board and her request for standby advisory board consideration was denied.  The documents that the applicant cites were missing from her file were in fact available for review by that board.  Consequently, there is no material error, and the applicant has not shown that an injustice exists because of her nonselection for promotion by this board, nor the denial of her request for standby advisory board consideration.   

3.  The applicant was informed through her congressman that promotion boards are not required to provide reasons for selection or nonselection for promotion, and consequently her reason for nonselection for promotion could not be determined.

4.  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 considering the applicant for promotion to Sergeant First Class by a standby advisory board under the 1996 promotion eligibility criteria.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__JH___  ___FKM__  __SLP__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON