MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037876

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 he be promoted to the rank and pay grade of Sergeant Major/E-9 (SGM/E-9).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was only considered for promotion to SGM/E-9 by one promotion selection board and was never selected for promotion or placed on the promotion list.  He indicates that he was never provided an explanation as to why he was never selected for promotion and his boss checked his official records and found no derogatory information that would have caused him not to be selected for promotion.  Finally, he indicates that he would like to know why he was not promoted for his own peace of mind.

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

On 31 October 1973, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank of Master Sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8), by reason of length of service retirement, after completing 29 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active military service.  

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates in block 23 (Appointments and Reductions) that the applicant attained the rank of MSG/E-8 on 25 July 1961 and that this is the highest rank he ever held while serving on active duty.  

The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does reveal that his record was reviewed for promotion to SGM/E-9 by a Department of the Army (DA) Centralized Promotion Board in 1973, just prior to his retirement.  However, it can not be determined from the available records how many other times the applicant had been recommended or considered for promotion to SGM/E-9. 

The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature.  This form shows that he was separated, under the provisions of chapter 12, Army Regulation 635-220, by reason of length of service retirement.  In addition, it verifies that he separated and was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8, effective 1 November 1973.  

An Information Paper published by the Promotions Branch of the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) provides the history of the centralized promotion system for senior grade promotions.  Promotion selection for SGM/E-9 was centralized at Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) on 1 January 1969.  Prior to the centralization system, soldiers were promoted based upon position/rank vacancies, cancelled requisitions and quotas.  Under this system a soldier could not compete for promotion unless a position/grade vacancy existed at his unit of assignment.  
The basic concept of the centralized promotion system was to promote those individuals who compete equally with their contemporaries and are found to be best qualified.  Promotion was never intended to be a reward for long honorable service in the present rank, but instead, has historically been based on demonstrated performance in present and lower ranks and potential ability to serve at the higher rank.  

Under the centralized system soldiers began to be considered for promotion using the "whole soldier" concept, whereby their qualifications for promotion were judged by their entire record.  No one item of information by itself is considered overriding in determining the best qualified for promotion.  The board's analysis of the OMPF included a careful evaluation of many factors which included the scope and variety of assignments; an estimate of potential (as reflected on evaluation reports) ; trends in their efficiency; length of service and maturity; their awards, decorations and commendations; their education - both military and civilian; their moral standards; their integrity and character; and their general physical condition. 

Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), in effect at the time, prescribed the policy and procedure for enlisted promotions.  It provides the rules and steps for managing the Centralized Promotion System for senior grade promotions and states, in pertinent part, that selection boards will recommend a specified number of soldiers by specialty who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.  These selections are made as a result of the collective best judgement of the board based on their review based on the "whole soldier" concept and the needs of the Army.  The regulation also specifically states that soldiers who are not selected for promotion will not be provided specific reasons for non-selection. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 12 sets policies and procedures for voluntary retirement of soldiers because of length of service.  Paragraph 12-3b states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement as directed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961 (10 USC 3961).  

Paragraph 12-6 (Advancement on the Retired List) contains guidance on the advancement of soldiers on the Retired List.  It indicates that advancement on the Retired List is limited to retired soldiers who held a higher grade and successfully served in that higher grade while on active duty.  There are no provisions for advancement of individuals who after being REFRAD and placed on the Regular Army Retired List attain a higher grade while serving in a USAR status. 

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.  While it is understandable that the applicant would like to know the reason(s) for his not being selected for promotion to SGM/E-9, it is not possible for this Board to determine the specific factors for the applicant’s non-selection through a review of his records at this late date.  

2.  Many factors are involved in the promotion selection process and the final selection of individuals for promotion is based on the collective best judgement of the members of the senior promotion selection board, after they have evaluated a member’s entire record of service using the whole soldier concept.  

3.  In addition, selection boards have historically been required to limit the total number of their selections based on the specific needs of the Army.  Thus, while there is no real way to prove it at this late date, it is entirely possible that the applicant’s service record was superior in all ways and his not being selected was the result of the Army having a limited need for SGM/E-9s in his particular specialty at the time.  

4.  The applicant’s service record shows an extensive history of selfless service for which he should be proud.  Attaining the rank of MSG/E-8 is realized by a very small percentage of the overall enlisted force and an accomplishment for which he should be pleased.  In the opinion of the Board, the applicant should not view his retirement in this rank as anything less than fully successful.  

5.  By law and regulation, an enlisted member retires in the rank and grade they hold on the date they are REFRAD and advancement on the Retired List is only authorized when a member has held and satisfactorily served in a higher pay grade while on active duty.  The law provides no provisions to advance a member on the Retired List based on a historical review of there records and promotion potential.  Therefore, the Board finds no basis to grant the requested relief.

6.  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.

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

___cla___  __wtm __  ___tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037867	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/10/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C12	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.0000	
2.  319	131.0900	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.