MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  12 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026301

	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.

			Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		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:  Promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC) E-7 and reinstatement to the Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course (ANCOC).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, while he was in ANCOC, he experienced personal extenuating circumstances that contributed significantly to his academic failure of the course and disenrollment.  These extenuating circumstances were inability to sleep properly or concentrate due to a health related death of his brother a couple of months before ANCOC, his grandmother being diagnosed with a potentially cancerous growth, and anticipated financial and family problems caused by receiving orders for a future unaccompanied tour in Korea.  He appealed his disenrollment but the appeal was denied.  It is an injustice that his classmate who had the same number of years in the service and level of experience and had similar personal extenuating circumstances, had his appeal approved, was allowed to take a 2nd retest and graduate from ANCOC, when the applicant in a like situation was not so allowed.  The applicant states that he was told he would not be removed from the promotion list and that he would be allowed to return for a future ANCOC but neither of these happened.  He was removed from the promotion list and his file was miscoded so that he was not considered by the next E-7 promotion board.  He had nineteen and a half years service to his credit and he should have been reconsidered for promotion.  He appealed to be reinstated on the E-7 promotion list and rescheduled for ANCOC but the appeals were denied.  This is also an injustice.

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

That he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 January 1979.  He was advanced through the ranks and promoted to Sergeant (SGT) E-5 on 1 August 1981 with a Primary Military Occupational Skill (PMOS) of 16S20, Air Defense Red Eye Missile Crewman.  In 1982, his PMOS was changed to 71N20, Traffic Management Coordinator, and then again in 1986 to 88N20, Traffic Management Coordinator. He was promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG) E-6 on 1 November 1993.  He was selected in 1997 for promotion to SFC E-7 and attendance at ANCOC.  (Completing the ANCOC is a prerequisite for promotion to SFC or retaining promotion to SFC.  Selection for E-7 promotion and ANCOC attendance are concurrent from the same promotion list.)

On 7 October 1997, the applicant was enrolled in Traffic Management Coordinator ANCOC at Fort Eustis, Virginia.  The applicant failed Exam 1 on or about 23 October 1997 and failed Exam 2 on or about 3 November 1997 but passed them both on retest.  He failed both Exam 3 and the retest for Exam 3 on or about 13 November and 17 November 1997 respectively.

On 18 November 1997, the applicant was notified by the ANCOC Commandant that he was being disenrolled for academic deficiency (failure) based on his failure of all the first three initial exams and his failure of Exam 3 retest.  The applicant appealed the disenrollment based on extenuating personal circumstances.

The appeal and the disenrollment notification were reviewed by the Fort Eustis Command Sergeant Major (CSM).  After review, the CSM concluded that the applicant should be disenrolled, that disenrollment was necessitated by extenuating conditions beyond the control of the applicant, and that disenrollment would not preclude the applicant from attending a future ANCOC.  The applicant was so disenrolled effective 18 November 1997 before the end date of the course on 26 November 1997.  As a result of disenrollment from the ANCOC, he was also removed from the E-7 promotion list on 24 March 1998.

Once disenrolled from ANCOC for academic deficiency and consequently removed form the E-7 promotion list, a soldier must be reselected by the next
E-7 regular promotion board to be again placed on the promotion list and reselected for attendance at ANCOC.  The next E-7/ANCOC selection board was conducted in 1998.  The zone of consideration for the promotion board was 
E-6 soldiers with a Basic Active Service Date (BASD) between 27 May 1979 to 27 May 1992.  The applicant’s BASD is 17 February 1979 so he was not eligible to be reconsidered for promotion to E-7 or further attendance at ANCOC.  He had first been considered by the 1996 E-7 promotion board and not selected, and considered by the 1997 E-7 promotion board and selected.  Because of his 
19 years of service and his relatively late promotion to E-6 in 1993, these two 
E-7 promotion boards were the only two for which he was eligible by E-6 date of rank and BASD.

In June 1998, the applicant requested reinstatement on the E-7 promotion list and enrollment in the next ANCOC.  The US Army Personnel Command disapproved his request on the basis of that ANCOC academic failure (deficiency) does not qualify for reinstatement consideration.

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 was disenrolled from ANCOC due to academic deficiency (failure) and consequently removed from the E-7 promotion list.  In order to be placed back on the E-7 promotion list and rescheduled for attendance at ANCOC, the applicant would have to be reselected by the next E-7 promotion board.  He was not considered by the next E-7 promotion board because he had exceeded the promotion eligibility BASD window and is now beyond consideration for promotion to E-7 due to his 19 years of service.  That the applicant experienced personal extenuating circumstances related to his ANCOC disenrollment does not overcome his ineligibility for promotion reconsideration and the consequent ineligibility for reenrollment in ANCOC.  There is no error or injustice in this situation.

2.  The applicant compares his ANCOC disenrollment appeal denial to that of a fellow E-6 ANCOC student whose disenrollment appeal was approved and was allowed to complete the course.  The applicant states that his extenuating circumstances and exam failure were very similar to that of his fellow classmate. The applicant cites as an injustice the fact that his fellow student was allowed to retest and complete the course while he was not allowed to retest and was disenrolled.  It is not possible to compare the performance and extenuating circumstances of the two soldiers.  Evidence does not show that the fellow student failed all three initial exams as the applicant did.  Likewise, in failing an exam related to MOS 88N material, the fact that the fellow student had been reassigned from an infantry MOS to the 88N MOS, Traffic Management Coordinator, after completing 88N training only 8 months before ANCOC and had no hands-on practical experience in the 88N MOS prior to attending ANCOC, is not comparable to the applicant who had approximately 10 years experience in the 88N MOS before attending ANCOC.  The extenuating circumstances in each case, while both are family related, are of a different nature and severity so that they cannot be equally compared.  The Board does not find a direct correlation of the circumstances and academic performance in the two cases and does not find the comparison to constitute an injustice or error.

3.  The applicant stated that based on the wording in his ANCOC disenrollment report, (“Disenrollment necessitated by extenuating conditions beyond the control of soldier and does not preclude him from attending a future ANCOC course”), he should have been reenrolled in ANCOC.  He also states that an error was made in not putting his record before the subsequent E-7 promotion selection board.  Army instruction on this point states that, “Soldiers who … become academic failures or otherwise do not meet the graduation requirements prior to their [promotion] sequence numbers being reached, will not be promoted and will have their names administratively removed from the centralized promotion list. Provided [they] are otherwise eligible, SSGs removed from the list will be considered by the next regularly scheduled board.”  There is no provision for ANCOC reinstatement for soldiers who are ANCOC academic failures except by being selected again by a subsequent E-7 promotion board.  However, such a soldier must also be eligible for consideration by the next E-7 promotion board.  The applicant was not eligible for consideration based on his BASD not being in the BASD eligibility window for the next promotion board.  There is no error or injustice in these procedures or the applicant’s file coding.

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

__JS___  __IW___  __LS___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026301	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000112	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.131	Promotion	
2.118.01	NCOES Reinstatement	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.