MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036879

	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. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 there was a 4-year delay in his promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 when Department of the Army (DA) consolidated (centralized) promotions to E-7.  He had been on the promotion list at Fort Lewis, WA as of 28 January 1970 but was not placed on the DA list until 1 April 1974.  His last two duty assignments were in E-8 slots.  He even performed duties as an acting first sergeant.

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

After having had prior active duty, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 30 April 1963.  

On 28 January 1970, the applicant was selected for promotion to SFC and placed on the Fort Lewis, WA recommended list in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic).  

The U. S. Total Army Personnel Command has confirmed that the applicant was considered by the August 1970 and the November 1971 SFC selection boards but not recommended for promotion.  No board was held in 1972.  He was recommended for promotion to SFC by the November 1973 selection board and was placed on the DA centralized promotion recommended list in MOS 63C with a sequence number of 08541.

Special Orders 206, Headquarters, DA dated 21 October 1974 promoted the applicant to SFC with a date of rank of 22 September 1974. 

The applicant provides an announcement of duty appointment disposition form to show he was appointed as acting first sergeant for the period 17 to 31 July 1979. 

The applicant’s EER for the period ending January 1980 shows he worked as a 63C40 motor sergeant/platoon sergeant ("4” indicating an E-7 position).  The indorser commented that the applicant frequently served as acting first sergeant. His EER for the period ending December 1980 shows he worked as a 63B50 battalion maintenance section sergeant (“5” indicating an E-8 position).  His EER for the period ending December 1981 shows he worked as a 63B40 motor sergeant.

The applicant’s DA Form 2-1, Personnel Qualification Record Part II shows he worked as a 63Z50 or 63B50 from 5 March 1980 until his retirement.

On 1 April 1983, the applicant retired in the rank and grade of SFC, E-7.

Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies pertaining to career management of Army enlisted personnel, to include enlisted promotions and reductions.  A centralized promotion system went into effect for E-7s on       1 June 1970.  At that time all local recommended lists were frozen, soldiers on the lists to be considered for promotion by the first centralized selection board which convened on 25 August 1970.  If a soldier was not selected by that board, he was automatically afforded consideration by the next two boards regardless of eligibility criteria specified for those boards.  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.  

Prior to the time the centralized promotion systems went into effect, individuals could have been recommended for promotion by the unit commander only against authorized position vacancies existing or projected for a 2-month period within the command as announced by the promoting authority.  A position vacancy in pay grades E-7, E-8 or E-9 would not be filled by a promotion unless a replacement in grade had been requisitioned and notification had been received by the promotion authority that a replacement in the appropriate grade could not be furnished.  The individual who was next in line on the order-of-merit-recommended-list to fill the vacancy and for whom a promotion quota was received would be promoted by the losing commander.

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 evidence of record shows that there was no 4-year delay in the applicant’s promotion to SFC.  The evidence shows that he was considered by the first two SFC centralized promotion selection boards but not recommended for promotion.  He was considered and recommended for promotion to SFC by the third centralized promotion board to convene with a sequence number that provided for his promotion in October 1974.

3.  Regarding the applicant’s failure to be promoted to E-8, 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. Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the soldiers who were recommended for promotion to E-8 were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified in their MOS.

4.  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

__vbc___  __jea___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036879	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000620	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.