PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           17 March 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-08076A
				   AR1999016472

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by reinstating him to the sergeant first class (SFC) promotion list.

3.  The applicant and his counsel contend that the procedure used to remove him from the promotion list did not meet the requirements of the governing regulation and that the battalion command sergeant major (CSM) abused his authority in precluding the applicant from attending the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC).  They also submit several letters of support.

4.  A captain, the applicant’s battery commander at the time, writes that most of the battery and the battalion chain of command were deployed.  The applicant and the battalion CSM were among the rear party.  He is convinced that the applicant met the weight control/body fat restrictions and could have attended his ANCOC class except that the battalion CSM told him he could not go.  The CSM later confided to the battery commander that he thought that the applicant was too young to be an SFC.

5.  The brigade commander where the applicant was stationed during the initial appeal of the case to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM)  recommended that the applicant be reinstated because he was unfairly removed.

6.  The Chief of Corps  Artillery,  XVIII Airborne Corps where the applicant is now stationed, writes that he has reviewed the documentation and concluded that the situation should never have occurred.  He considers the applicant one of the finest NCOs he has encountered during his 20 year career and recommends that he be restored to the promotion list.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 , in part, provides the policy and procedures for removing an NCO from a centralized promotion list.  It requires notification of PERSCOM by electronic message.  In weight control cases, it requires a 6 month trial period in a weight control program if satisfactory progress is not made and a 12 months trial period if satisfactory progress is being made.  The regulation cautions that recommendations for removal from a promotion list should not be made based on isolated acts or short term supervision and notes that neither punishment under the UCMJ non nonpunitive measures should automatically become the sole basis for removal.  Finally, a recommendation, with supporting documentation, must be referred the subject soldier who is allowed 15 days to prepare a rebuttal which is then processed through the chain of command and may be disapproved at any level.

8.  The PERSCOM web page currently cautions leaders at all levels about the possible consequences of administratively holding an ANCOC candidate in 
the unit and thereby creating a “no-show situation.”  It explains that any soldier who does not report to ANCOC will be considered a no-show and their promotion status will be revoked.  It notes that soldiers who have not completed ANCOC by their promotion date will be “conditionally” promoted with the understanding that they must complete ANCOC to retain their promotion.  Individuals thus promoted  who are no-shows for ANCOC will be administratively reduced to staff sergeant with their original date of rank.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Given the circumstances of the case, but especially the exhaustive requirements for removing an individual from a centralized promotion list and the currently published cautions to leadership against creating this kind of situation, the actions that led to the applicant’s failure to report to ANCOC were short sighted, at best. 

2.  Even if none the current requirements and guidance had been in place at that time, he should have, at least, been counseled concerning the possible career ending consequences of not reporting to ANCOC.  However, the available evidence indicates that he was directed to not report and fails to show that he would have been disqualified by the weight control/body fat requirements if he had reported.

3.  In light of the above and in view of the support from senior commanders the applicant should be promoted, back pay should be authorized and he should be given an opportunity to complete ANCOC.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would rectify an injustice by correcting  the applicant’s records 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:
	
	a.  by promoting him to SFC with a date of rank consistent with his original sequence number; 

b.  by authorizing back pay;  and

c.  by ordering him to ANCOC within a reasonable time consistent with his current assignment, projected rotation and the needs of the service.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__TSK__  __OWT__  __JPS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Ted S. Kanamine____________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-08076A
AR1999016472	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990317	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.