MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036288

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 records be corrected to show he was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he worked in an E-7 slot for 9 years.  All they had to do was fill out the correct papers.  

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

After having had prior active duty from February 1945 – October 1946 and inactive service in the Enlisted Reserve Corps and the Army National Guard, he reenlisted in the Army National Guard on 17 September 1977.  His DA Form 2-1, Personnel Qualification Record Part II shows he worked as a 63H20, automotive repairman from September 1977 – January 1981; a 94B20/30 cook from January 1981 – March 1986; and a 71L10 clerk typist from March 1986 until he was transferred to the Retired Reserve.  

The applicant had been promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 23 September 1981.  

By letter dated 7 March 1985, the Missouri Army National Guard notified the applicant that he had been recommended for retention by the Enlisted Qualitative Retention Board.  He was also informed that the board had noted his military education did not meet acceptable standards commensurate to his military rank and that that was his second notification concerning his military education.

On 13 October 1986, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and grade of SSG, E-6.

National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes policies for the management of Army National Guard enlisted soldiers in several personnel areas, including promotion, appointment and reduction.  Promotion policy in effect at the time required, among several other eligibility requirements, that the soldier be recommended by the unit commander, have completed the time-in-grade requirements (to pay grade E-7, 21 months, half of which was waivable), and be in the next below pay grade.  The unit commander could recommend enlisted members in pay grades E-4 through E-8 for promotion consideration without regard to position vacancy; however, the promotion of enlisted members to pay grades E-5 through E-9 would be based solely on the member’s qualifications and on the appropriate position vacancies.  If more than one individual was being considered for promotion to the same pay grade, the recorder would arrange on a lineal list the names of the individuals recommended by the board in order of merit based on the total points awarded by the board.  

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 applicant may have been in an E-7 slot for 9 years, although there is no evidence of record to verify that, but he was not eligible for promotion to E-7 for that entire period of time.  Considering the time in grade requirement, the soonest he could have been considered for promotion was around July 1982.  In addition, there is no evidence of record to show that he ever appeared before a promotion board or was recommended for promotion by his unit commander.  He makes no contention that he appeared before a promotion board.  Considering the applicant’s recognized deficiency in military education, the Board concludes that it was not unreasonable for his commander not to have recommended him for promotion.

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

__mkp___  __esc___  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036288	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.