MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999017759

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Restoration of his 1SG rank, reinstatement into a TPU, his records amended to show no break in service, restoration of all retirement points and related back pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was removed as 1SG, but continued to serve as 1SG after removal, the removal was never explained to him, there were no performance problems, his 1SG NCO-ERs were very good reports, he did not receive timely assistance from his former chain of command, congresswoman or senator, and he alleges possible race discrimination.

In support of his claim the applicant submitted an incomplete DD Form 149.  He did not indicate whether or not he desired to appear before the board, and made no entry in Item 10 of evidence or information that supports his claim.

The applicant wrote a letter to his senator and congresswoman.  In the letters he states on or about 15 February 1991 while the unit was mobilized in support of Desert Storm, the battalion commander in the presence of his company commander relieved him as 1SG.  The action was taken against the wishes of his company commander and sergeant major.  He was unable to see the brigade commander and filed a complaint with the IG, his NCO-ERs as 1SG are good and as the only African-American in the battalion or brigade he believes he is being discriminated against.

Also submitted was a 5 May 1994, 425th Transportation Brigade, IG response to the applicant.  The response informed the applicant that this IG concurred with a previous IG findings.  The letter provides no support to any of the applicant’s complaints.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:  he enlisted into the USAR on 30 June 1979, at the pay grade E5,  with 1 year, 10 months, 11 days Active Military Service and 6 years, 1 month, 19 days Total Inactive Service.

The record contained three NCO-ERs prepared for the applicant as 1SG.  NCO-ER 8710 – 8808 is an excellent report complimenting the applicant on his performance and for volunteering two extra weeks to insure the success of annual training.  

NCO-ER 8809 – 8908 is an adverse report.  In the area of Competence the applicant is graded a Needs Improvement.  To support this negative evaluation the rater writes “Needs improvement in drill and ceremonies and “Has committed some errors in judgement”.  In the area of Physical Fitness & Military Bearing he is graded a Success, but the comment “Not cleared for APFT”  and lack of explanation to support his exceeding the height/weight standards contradict the Success rating.  In the area of Responsibility & Accountability he is graded a Needs Improvement.  To support this negative evaluation the rater writes “Has used poor judgement in personal equipment”.  The applicant offered no explanation as to his understanding of the circumstances that are the bases for these comments.

NCO-ER 8908 – 9008 is a slightly less than fair report for a 1SG.

NCO-ER 9009 – 9108 is the first report on which the applicant is not listed as 1SG.  The applicant’s duty title is listed as Assigned Over-strength, immediately above the words Railway Sr. Sgt. Were handwritten.  The applicant states he was removed as 1SG during this rating period.  The duty description is the same as it is on his previous 1SG, NCO-ERs.  The NCO-ER is an Annual, the rater grades him a Success in all areas, but contains no comments or examples of the applicant carrying out 1SG specific duties. 

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.  The applicant submitted no information, statements or other evidence to support his claims.

2.  The NCO-ER for the period 8809 – 8908 contains Needs Improvement grades.  The Needs Improvement grades contradict the applicant’s statement that his 1SG reports were very good.  The adverse rater’s statement contradict the applicant’s assertion he is unaware of why he was no longer desired as a 1SG.

3.  The applicant alleges that the sergeant major and the company commander did not agree with the battalion commander’s action.  No supporting statements from either are provided.  The adverse comments by the company commander on the applicant’s NCO-ER indicate the company commander most likely supported or initiated the applicant’s termination as 1SG.

4.  The applicant had the same rater/company commander from October 1987 until August 1990.  The same rater that gave him the adverse report later gave him a more favorable report.  Within such a relationship, it is not reasonable to conclude the company commander would give his 1SG a career ending NCO-ER without explanation at that time or later.  The applicant’s allegation of “No explanation of termination of 1SG appointment” is not probable.

5.  The applicant did not present any evidence, such as the results of an EEO complaint, to support his allegation of possible discrimination.  Absent supporting evidence the allegation is unsubstantiated.

6.  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

_svw____  _vbc_____  _bje____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024698	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19991202	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.