MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037119

	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. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7, Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8 or warrant officer.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he worked in a warrant officer position while an advisor to the Argentine Army.  He had been on the SFC promotion list in 1969 through 1971 in Germany but he was moved several times for special duties so he never went before a promotion board.  He completed the U. S. Army Basic Officer Intelligence Course, the Counterinsurgency and Psychological Operations Courses plus many other intelligence courses and he was working on his Military Intelligence Analyst Course.  While in Vietnam he feels he was utilized in intelligence gathering without being given the corresponding military occupational specialties (MOSs).  He provides his DD Forms 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, his honorable discharge certificates and numerous military orders as supporting evidence.  Also provided are three letters recommending his appointment as a warrant officer (two undated; one dated 10 October 1960) and one letter of recommendation dated 14 January 1969 recommending his promotion to SFC.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 22 September 1950.  By 1958 he was working as a single rotor helicopter mechanic.  After one reduction to pay grade E-5, he was promoted back to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 17 December 1965.  He was awarded MOS 67Z, Aircraft Maintenance Supervisor on 17 December 1965.  On or about 25 April 1968, MOS 67Z was made his secondary MOS and he was awarded primary MOS 67N, UH-1 Helicopter Repairman.

In 1967, the applicant apparently applied for a direct commission as an Infantry officer with concurrent active duty.  His application was disapproved.  The disapproval from the Military Intelligence Branch noted that he was not qualified for such appointment partially because he received disciplinary action under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on two occasions in 1966.

The applicant’s DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record, shows that he started working in “4” positions (i. e., E-7 positions) in July 1965 either as a 67Z or 67N except for three short periods in 71L40 (administrative) or 11F40 (combat arms, training noncommissioned officer) positions.  His DA Form 20 shows that he completed only one aviation course, in 1957, but several military intelligence correspondence courses, an automatic fuel and electronic systems repairman course in 1953 and a 2-week CV-2B AAMTP (Army Aviation Mobile Technical Assistance Program) Maintenance Course in 1965.  It also shows that he earned the Combat Infantryman Badge and four awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal but no other personal decorations.
Three EPEECO Forms 10, MOS Evaluation Data Reports are on file.  The Form 10 for evaluation period February 1968 shows he received an MOS (67Z) evaluation score of 80.  The Form 10 for evaluation period August 1969 shows he received an MOS (67N) evaluation score of 91.  The Form 10 for evaluation period August 1970 shows he received an MOS (67N) evaluation score of 84.

The EPEECO Forms 10 were reformatted into USAEEC Form 10s, Enlisted Evaluation Data Reports around 1972.  One USAEEC Form 10 for his primary MOS is on file for evaluation period August 1972.  It shows he received an MOS (67N) evaluation score of 88.  His average EER score was 125 (the maximum); the average for grade was 105.  The number of correct answers on his written test was 53; the average for grade was 78. 

One Enlisted Evaluation Reports for the period ending March 1972 is available.  It shows the applicant received all “outstanding” ratings and an advancement potential rating of “promote EM immediately.”  His duty MOS during this report period was 71L40.

On 1 March 1973, the applicant retired in the rank and grade of SSG, E-6.

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-8s on       1 March 1969 and for E-7s on 1 June 1970.  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.

Army Regulation 135-100 prescribes policies and procedures for the appointment of commissioned and warrant officers in the Army National Guard of the United States and the U. S. Army Reserve.  In pertinent part it prescribes the documents needed to apply for warrant officer.

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.  Regarding the period of time prior to when promotions to E-7 were centralized, the Board cannot verify, at this point in time, if the applicant was recommended for promotion or, if he was, why he never went to a promotion board.  It is not appropriate to presume that had he appeared before a promotion board that he would have been promoted.  Someone else could have been higher on the order-of-merit list; possibly no promotion quota would have been available; possibly a replacement in grade would never have been requisitioned.

3.  Regarding the period of time after promotions to E-7 were centralized, 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 the latter years during which he was considered for promotion were years of drawdown after the Vietnam War.  The Board notes that his EER weighted average showed that he always received the maximum score on his EERs.  However, his EPEECO and USAEEC Forms 10 show that his MOS scores were below average.  The Board notes the applicant’s military education but also notes that most of his courses were not in his primary specialty field.  Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the soldiers who were recommended for promotion to E-7 were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified in their MOS.

4.  Since the Board concludes that there was no error in the applicant’s not being promoted to SFC, consideration of his request for promotion to MSG is not appropriate.

5.  The Board notes that the applicant does not contend that he ever applied for reclassification into one of the military intelligence MOSs.  Since promotions are made in a soldier’s primary MOS, it is not appropriate to speculate on what his chances for promotion would have been had he been a military intelligence specialist rather than a helicopter repairman.  

6.  Consideration of the applicant’s request for promotion to warrant officer is also not appropriate.  Warrant officers are not promoted from the enlisted ranks.  A soldier must apply for appointment to warrant officer.  Although the applicant provides evidence to show that he had been recommended for appointment to  warrant officer, he provides no evidence to show and he does not contend that he actually did apply for such appointment.

7.  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

__owt___  __kan___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200037119	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000615	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.