MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  25 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025332

	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. Theodore G. Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 restored to the rank of sergeant first class (SFC); that he be reimbursed the difference of pay between SFC and staff sergeant (SSG) from 1 April 1998; and that he be rescheduled to attend advanced NCO course (ANCOC) at the earliest possible date.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has always been within the body fat standards in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-9; and that the basis for his loss of promotion and disenrollment from ANCOC concerned an improperly administered tape test procedure which resulted in a failure to administer the third tape test. 

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a memorandum requesting promotion reinstatement from his regimental commander dated 17 July 1998; a memorandum requesting promotion reinstatement from his regimental command sergeant major dated 17 July 1998; a body fat content work sheet indicating 22.18% dated 1 April 1998; a body fat content worksheet indicating 20.96 dated 2 April 1998; an undated body fat content worksheet indicating 22.58%; three Army physical fitness test score cards; four NCOERs; and a detailed statement from his regimental commander dated 11 January 1999.

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

He entered active duty in the Regular Army on 31 October 1988 and is currently serving in the rank of SSG at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Review of the body fat content worksheets shows one undated sheet indicating 22.58% actual body fat, one sheet dated 1 April 1998 indicating 22.18% actual body fat, and one sheet dated 2 April 1998 indicating 20.96% actual body fat.

On 13 March 1998, he was promoted to SFC with an effective date of 1 April 1998 contingent upon his successful completion of ANCOC.

On 3 April 1998, he was denied enrollment in ANCOC for failing to meet the height and weight standards under the provisions of AR 600-9.

On 3 June 1998, he was removed from the 1997 SFC promotion list in accordance with procedural guidance outlined in Army policy linking promotion to the NCO education system.

On 17 July 1998, his regimental commander provided a statement to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (DA PERSCOM) reinstatement board in support of the applicant’s request for reinstatement of his promotion to SFC.  The statement outlined the circumstances leading to the applicant’s ANCOC 

disenrollment and loss of promotion.  In this statement, he said, in effect, that the applicant had always met Army body fat standards; that on 1 April 1998, he was only taped twice with the first measurement at 22.58% and the second measurement at 22.18%, a difference of .40%; and that he should have been taped a third time.  His commander further stated that the testing process was 
flawed because of the lack of experience on the part of the test administrators; that it was raining and he had wet clothing during the weigh-in which increased his weight; and that within 24 hours, he was weighed and taped at the master fitness school with a results of 20.96%, well below the allowable maximum percentage of 22%.  His commander added that the applicant was an outstanding NCO and failure to overturn the decision would be an injustice and very damaging to his career. 

On 23 September 1998, the reinstatement board disapproved the applicant’s request for reinstatement.  The reinstatement board stated, in effect, that all matters in extenuation and mitigation were taken into consideration and that his reasons did not warrant reinstatement.

The statement submitted by his regimental commander in support of his request to this Board presented essentially, the same circumstances and rationale as did his statement to the reinstatement board.  He added however, that the standard tape measure currently in use was being replaced because it may exceed the 
½ inch circumferential measurements. 

AR 600-9 pertains to the Army weight control program and states, in effect and in pertinent part, that an individual will be measured by three times or more if necessary in accordance with standard tape measuring procedures until three measurements within ¼ inch of each other are obtained.  If only two measurements were taken, there would be no way to determined which was the most accurate measurement therefore, three measurements are needed. 

AR 600-8-19 pertains to the Army enlisted promotion system and states, in pertinent part, that eligibility for promotion to SFC includes completion of ANCOC.

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’s request is not warranted when the evidence of record is considered.

2.  The Board concludes that the body fat measurements of 22.58% and 22.18% 

taken on 1 April 1998 and the body fat measurement of 20.96% allegedly taken 
less than 24 hours later on 2 April 1998, does not provide clear, convincing and compelling evidence that his body fat percentage did not exceed the maximum of 22% during ANCOC enrollment on 1 April 1998.  

3.  The Board further concludes that even though a third measurement was not taken on 1 April 1998 as he alleges, it is unlikely that a third measurement, if one had been taken, would not have indicated such a drastically disproportionate measurement as the one taken on 2 April 1998 and would have more than likely confirmed his excessive body fat content.  Such a difference in the measurements taken on 1 April 1998 from the measurement taken on 2 April 1998 only suggests that different taping standards were applied by two different taping teams.  None of these measurements indicated a use of improper taping  procedures.

4.  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.

5.  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

___LS__  ___AR___  __LE____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025332	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990825	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1039	Reinstatement to NCOES	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.