MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 October 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026517

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  That his date of rank be adjusted to 1991 and he be paid all due back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was scheduled to attend the Basic Non-Commissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) in combination with his attendance at the 54E20 course in 1986.  BNCOC was overbooked so he could not attend but was told he would return for BNCOC within 2 years.  After 3 years of waiting, he found out he was not selected for BNCOC because his records already reflected he was a BNCOC graduate.  He could not attend BNCOC because he was coded as already attending, yet he could not get promotion points for the course unless he had a DA Form 1059, Academic Evaluation Report, which he did not have because he did not attend the course.  The U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) told him only the Chemical School could change the code; the Chemical School told him only PERSCOM could change it.  He went before the Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 promotion board in April 1989.  For the next 6 years he continued to get the run around.  Several times during that period he would have made the cut-off scores for promotion had he been credited as a BNCOC graduate.  Finally, his command sergeant major’s efforts got him rescheduled for BNCOC attendance.  He graduated and within a year was promoted.  The orders directing he attend the 54E course, his diploma from that course, his DA Form 2A, Personnel Qualification Record dated 5 April 1996 showing his military education as a BNCOC graduate, and his DA Form 1059 from his attendance at BNCOC in 1996 are provided as supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 April 1982.  He was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 8 January 1987.  He graduated from BNCOC as the Distinguished Honor Graduate on 24 July 1996.  He was promoted to SSG on
1 April 1997.

Military personnel message #92-247, subject Procedural Guidance for the Linkage of NCOES to Promotions (Active Component), effective 1 October 1992, established that soldiers must be graduates of BNCOC in order to be promoted to SSG.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, PERSCOM.  That office noted that the applicant has provided no source documentation that indicates he met or exceeded a cutoff score anytime prior to 1 April 1997, when he was promoted to SSG, and recommended disapproval of his request.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for rebuttal.  He did not respond within the given time frame.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, 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 Board cannot determine if the applicant is contending that he did meet the cutoff score for promotion to SSG at any time between 1991 (the date he requests his date of rank be adjusted to) and 1 April 1997 (the date he was actually promoted) or if he is contending he would have met the cutoff score had he had the points allotted for BNCOC graduation.  In either case, he provides no evidence to show what his promotion points actually were at any time during that time frame.

3.  Regulations provide that qualification records, including the DA Form 2-series, should be reviewed at least once a year.  Even if the established controls to ensure this annual audit is broken, an NCO has a responsibility to himself to review his records at least once a year to ensure all information on his records is properly recorded.  The Board notes the applicant states he found out his records were annotated as a BNCOC graduate 3 years after his attendance at the 54E course but provides no evidence to show he questioned that entry before that time.

4.  The Board notes the applicant states he got the run around from PERSCOM and the Chemical School in determining who should correct his records.  Yet he provides no evidence to show he brought this issue to his chain of command until 1996, when his command sergeant major got involved and arranged his attendance at BNCOC.  The Board can understand a soldier not knowing about its purpose or even its existence, but it cannot empathize with an NCO not using his chain of command to resolve an issue so important to his career.  

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

__aao___  __vbc___  __rwa___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026517	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991006	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.