MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            18 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012431

	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	
	Mr. Ed Clark		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 military records be corrected to show that her promotion selection to the grade of master sergeant was appropriate; and that she was subsequently promoted to that grade.

APPLICANT STATES:  That a promotion selection board recommended her for promotion but that the promotion did not occur.

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

She was enlisted in the USAR on 7 June 1974 and entered active duty in an Active Guard/Reserve status on 1 November 1976.

A Department of the Army Circular, dated 28 June 1995 and titled "Implementation of Changes to the MOS Classification and Structure, shows, in essence, that the duties and functions of Reserve Component soldiers serving as recruiters would be reclassified to MOS 79R; and that soldiers serving as retention NCOs would be reclassified to MOS 79S.

The applicant's NCO Evaluation Report for the period beginning in October 
1995 shows that she was serving in MOS 79S.

A 16 April 1996 AGR Promotion List shows that she was recommended for promotion to the grade of master sergeant in MOS 79R.  Further documents related to this matter are not in the available records.

An 18 December 1996 letter addressed to the applicant and signed by the Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, shows that following the applicant's request for assistance, it was determined that a promotion selection board analyst had mistakenly forwarded her promotion packet indicating her MOS as 79R; and, in essence, that although an unfortunate administrative error had occurred, she was not entitled to promotion to the grade of master sergeant.  The document further shows that because of the error, the applicant's records were reviewed by a standby board; however, she was not selected for promotion.

On 30 November 1997, with more than 21 years of active Federal service, she was retired in the grade of sergeant first class by reason of length of service.

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.  Apparently through administrative error, the applicant's records were reviewed by a promotion selection board and she was selected for promotion in an MOS in which she was not serving.  Upon discovery of the error, her records were then reviewed by a standby board.  She was not selected for promotion.

2.  An administrative error cannot reasonably be considered as a sufficient basis on which to grant the applicant's request.

3.  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

JMA____  KYF_____  EWL____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC1998012431	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 March 18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.