MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036166

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8 prior to his retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he feels he should have been promoted to a higher grade.  He feels that his responsibilities far outweighed his grade status as a Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7.  Due to the frequent and extended absences of his superiors, he often had to make decisions that would ordinarily have been the responsibility of those superiors.  He provides his Senior Enlisted Evaluation Reports (SEERs) for the periods ending February 1977, April 1979, and August 1980 and a letter of commendation dated 3 March 1980 with endorsement as supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 19 February 1964 and was awarded a computer-related military occupational specialty (MOS).  He served in Germany as a card and tape writer or signal supply and parts specialist with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 19th Ordnance Battalion and HHC, 115th Supply and Service Battalion.  Upon return to the States he served as a machine accounting specialist with the 3d Adjutant General Data Processing Center, Fort McPherson, GA.  Upon return to Germany he served as a card and tape writer or computer systems operator with Headquarters, U. S. European Command.  Upon return to the States he served as a senior console operator or system supervisor with the U. S. Army Personnel Data Support Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.  During his assignment to Korea he was assigned to Headquarters, United Nations Command as a computer systems operator.  Upon his return to the States he was assigned to the Pentagon as an assistant supervisor and to the TOS (acronym unknown) Project Office in Falls Church, VA.  

The applicant’s Enlisted Evaluation Report (DA Form 2166-5) for the period ending January 1973 shows he received 3 Excellent and 3 Above Average ratings (out of a possibility of “Outstanding,” “Excellent,” “Above Average,” “Average,” “Below Average,” or “Unsatisfactory”).  He received a potential rating of 4 (out of a possibility of 1 – Promote EM Immediately; 2; 3 – Promote EM Ahead of Contemporaries; 4; 5 – Promote EM With Contemporaries; 6; 7 – Do Not Promote EM; and 8 – Deny EM Continued Active Duty).  His EER for the period ending January 1974 shows he received 5 Outstandings and 1 Excellent and a potential rating of 3.  His EER for the period ending January 1975 shows he received all Outstandings and a potential rating of 1.  His Senior Enlisted Evaluation Report (SEER) (DA Form 2166-6) for the period ending January 1976 shows he received a score of 109 (out of a maximum of 125).  

The applicant’s Enlisted Evaluation Data Report (EEDR) for the evaluation period February 1973 shows he received an MOS evaluation score of 84 with 66 correct answers (average for grade was 74).  His EEDR for the evaluation period February 1974 shows he received an MOS evaluation score of 87 with 68 correct answers (average for grade was 79).  His EEDR for the evaluation period February 1975 shows he received an MOS evaluation score of 90 with 71 correct answers (average for grade was 84).

The applicant was promoted to SFC, E-7 on 16 October 1976.

The applicant’s SEER for the period ending February 1977 shows he worked in an E-7 position and that he received a score of 121 (out of a maximum of 125).  His SEER for the period ending April 1979 shows he worked in an E-7 position and received a score of 123.  His SEER for the period ending August 1980 shows he worked in an E-7 position and received a score of 125.

On 1 November 1980, the applicant retired as an SFC, E-7 after completing      20 years of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214, Report of Separation, and his personnel records show he had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal and six awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He had completed 30 semester hours of college in 1960 and the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy in 1968.

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.  At this late date the Board cannot determine what criteria E-8 promotion boards were looking for at the time he may have been eligible for consideration.  However, the Board concludes that the applicant would not have been competitive for promotion.  Aside from his retirement SEER and maybe one other, his evaluation reports show he was average at best.  His Enlisted Evaluation Data Reports do show he was a below average soldier in MOS knowledge.  He was never awarded a military decoration.  He stopped working on his civilian education after he enlisted and he never attended the NCO Advanced Course.

3.  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

__eb____  __tap___  __klw___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036166	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000427	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.