MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037245

	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:  In effect, that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he thinks he got an unjust deal his last six years in the Army.  He was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 in June 1966.  In October 1966 he was sent to Vietnam.  He was wounded and hospitalized for several months.  Upon his release from the hospital he was assigned to Fort Sill, OK as a First Sergeant.  He attended the Engineer Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Course for his grade level and returned to the First Sergeant position.  He was sent again to Vietnam where he served as a First Sergeant.  He rotated but less that a year later was back in Vietnam.  He has a number of awards and letters of appreciation/commendation but he was never promoted.  He has no regrets about serving his country but believes he should have been promoted to E-8.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 January 1954.  He was promoted to SFC
on 30 June 1966.  He held primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 63N, Construction Machine Supervisor; secondary MOS 62H, Asphalt/Concrete Machine Operator; and additional MOS 12B, Combat Engineer.

The applicant served three tours in Vietnam.  He was wounded during his first tour and was awarded the Purple Heart.  Other decorations included the Army Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star Medal.  He served as a First Sergeant while at Fort Sill, OK, while in Vietnam during his second tour, and while at Fort Meade, MD.  For civilian education he had earned his high school equivalency.  For military education he completed a 2-week Methods of Instruction course and the Army Engineer NCO Course.

Two USAEEC Form 10s, Enlisted Evaluation Data Reports are on file.  The one for evaluation period February 1972 shows he received an MOS (62N) evaluation score of 91.  His average Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) score was 116; the average for grade was 111.  The number of correct answers on his written test was 65; the average for grade was 80.  The Form 10 for evaluation period February 1973 shows he received an MOS (62N) evaluation score of 86.  His average EER score was 109; the average for grade was 114.  The number of correct answers on his written test was 75; the average for grade was 87.

On 1 August 1974, 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-8s on       1 March 1969.  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.  Regarding the period of time prior to when promotions to E-8 were centralized, the Board cannot determine, at this point in time, if the applicant was recommended for promotion or, if he was, why he was not selected for promotion.  If he was recommended for promotion, there could have been any number of reasons why he was not selected for promotion.  Someone else could have been higher on the order-of-merit list; possibly no promotion quota was available; possibly a replacement in grade had never been requisitioned.

3.  Regarding the period of time after promotions to E-8 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.  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

__mkp___  __esc___  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037245	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.