MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036340

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC),   E-7 in 1987.  As an investigator with the U. S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) he performed duties as the Chief of Investigative Support, which is comparable to the First Sergeant position in other units.  He also performed duties as a Special Agent in Charge, which is a senior warrant officer position.  He never received an adverse non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER).  Most of his NCO-ERs reflected that he should be promoted ahead of his peers and that he was physically and mentally prepared for promotion to MSG.  He was considered by at least four E-8 promotion boards and does not understand why he was not selected.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 May 1975.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95D, CID Special Agent, around December 1980.  He completed his Associates degree in 1983.  He completed the Military Police Advanced Course by extension in 1985.  He was promoted to SFC on 14 July 1987.  He retired on 1 September 1995 in the rank and grade of SFC, E-7.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part it states that centralized promotion boards (for promotion consideration to grades E-7, E-8 and E-9) will select the best qualified soldier in each MOS for promotion.  They will recommend a specified number of soldiers by MOS from zones of consideration who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.  The total number selected in each MOS is the projected number the Army needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength at any given time.

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.  Without being able to review all the records, MOS/authorized-by-grade projections and special instructions that were available to the promotion boards that considered the applicant, the Board cannot determine why he was not selected for promotion.  The Board is aware that he was considered for promotion during the peak years of the drawdown.  Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the soldiers who were recommended for promotion to MSG were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified in their MOS.

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

__jns___  __mdm___  __mw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036340	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000524	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.