MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            19 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022172

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 he be awarded promotion points for his Self Development Test (SDT) score from 1994; that he then be promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (E-6).  This is also a request that his separation of 7 August 1996 be voided and that he be retained on active duty or, in the alternative, that he be given a 15-year retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he scored 99 percent on the 1994 SDT and that the Army was supposed to give promotion points for SDT scores.  Had he received promotion points for his SDT score, he would have been eligible for promotion and would not have been separated due to having reached his retention control point for sergeant (E-5).  In support of his application, he provides his scores on the 11 April 1994 SDT; a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty; and a copy of his DA Form 2A, Personnel Qualification Record, dated 31 January 1996.

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

He served on continuous active duty from 3 August 1981 until his honorable discharge on 7 August 1996.  He served a total of 15 years and 5 days, and was separated as a sergeant (E-5).

On 11 April 1994, the applicant took the SDT and achieved a score of 97 out of 100 possible points.  This placed him in the 99th percentile for his military occupational specialty (MOS) of 71L20, administrative specialist.

Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes criteria for the Army Retention Program and sets forth policies, command responsibilities for immediate reenlistment or extension of enlistment of soldiers currently serving in the Active Army.  It lists the qualifications for reenlistment and states, in pertinent part, that a sergeant 
(E-5) may not serve beyond 15 years without being promotable to the next higher rank (staff sergeant E-6).

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.  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 applicant was involuntarily released from active duty when he achieved his maximum retention control point of 15 years for his rank of sergeant (E-5).  His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant; he did not qualify for a 15-year retirement.

3.  The SDT was a pilot program to develop a skills test to replace the SQT, Skill Qualification Test, used to measure a soldier’s knowledge of his job.  The test was developed as a prototype and administered in selected MOSs.  The pilot program found the SDT to be too costly and too difficult to administer and score.  It was not implemented.  Because it was a limited test program, no plan was ever offered to award promotion points based upon SDT scores.

4.  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

__jph___  ___eja___  __vbc____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022172	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.	131.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.