MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 August 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036190

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 pay grade E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was given a bad enlisted evaluation report (EER) by his commander while in the 97th Quartermaster (QM) Battalion.  The commander had it in for him because he was a character witness for a fellow sergeant in his unit and the sergeant was acquitted.  He would have been promoted if it were not for this EER because he received several awards for outstanding performance after he left that unit.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 27 May 1960.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76W (Petroleum Storage Specialist) in July 1967.  He held secondary MOS 57H (Cargo Handler) until it was withdrawn in June 1973.  He was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 on 17 September 1968.  He was assigned to Company A, 97th QM Battalion, Germany from June 1971 – July 1974 and to Company A, 4th Supply and Transport Battalion, Fort Carson, CO from July 1974 until his retirement.

On 12 November 1974, the applicant was selected to receive a Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (DA QMP) bar to reenlistment.  The basis for the DA QMP was two below-average EERs (during which periods he was in the 97th QM Battalion) and three below average MOS test scores (two for his primary MOS and one for his secondary MOS).  He appealed but his appeal was disapproved.  

On 1 June 1977, the applicant retired in the rank and grade of SFC, E-7 after completing 20 years and 2 days of creditable active service.

There is no evidence of record to show the applicant received any awards after his departure from the 97th QM Battalion except for a retirement Meritorious Service Medal.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant ever appealed the two EERs cited in his DA QMP bar to reenlistment.

Army Regulation 600-200 at the time prescribed the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part it stated that centralized promotion boards (for promotion consideration to grades E-7, E-8 and E-9) would select the best qualified soldier in each MOS for promotion.  They would recommend a specified number of soldiers by MOS from zones of consideration who were the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army. 

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 this requirement.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant received his DA QMP bar to reenlistment for more than just the two EERs from the 97th QM Battalion.  He also received low scores on several MOS evaluation tests.  Centralized promotion boards could only compare his records with the records of other E-7s being reviewed by the same promotion boards.  It appears his records did not indicate to the boards that he was best qualified for promotion compared to other E-7s considered. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for the applicant to have been selected for promotion or for this Board to grant such relief.  

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

__gdp___  __clg___  __alr___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036190	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000824	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.