MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039265

	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. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 feels he was the victim of prejudice and injustice while assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor, Germany.  He had contracted psoriasis while in Vietnam and had a physical profile for this condition when he was assigned to Germany.  He was immediately questioned about his profile and his performance of duty.  He was constantly monitored and harassed by First Lieutenant M___.  First Lieutenant M___ gave him a counseling statement and an Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) with a score of 11.  He appealed the EER and was informed by Department of the Army that the EER was invalid.  He feels this EER was the cause of him being overlooked for promotion.  He provides a copy of his DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record; AE Form 113-3, Record of Formal Counseling; EER for the period November 1974 through October 1975; 19 letters of appreciation/commendation and related endorsements; DA Form 638, Recommendation for Award of the Certificate of Achievement dated 31 May 1974; a letter of recommendation dated 5 August 1977; letter from the U. S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center dated 30 September 1976 approving his appeal of the EER for the period ending October 1975; Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) orders and certificate; and recommendation for award of the MSM (1st oak leaf cluster) and related certificate.

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

After having had prior service in the U. S. Navy, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 October 1962.  He completed advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 174.00 (Hawk Missile Crewman). He was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 on 26 September 1967.  He was awarded primary MOS 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic) on 27 June 1968.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 68th Armor, Germany on 27 September 1974.  

The applicant’s EER for the period November 1974 through October 1975 gave him a total score of 11 (out of a maximum of 125).  The indorser was unable to evaluate.  The applicant appealed this EER.  On 30 September 1976, the U. S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center approved his appeal.  He was informed that his official records had been amended to delete the EER from all official records, the invalid report would be deleted from his tape record and any score reflecting the voided report would be recomputed.

No other EERs are available.

Three USAEEC Form 10s, Enlisted Evaluation Data Reports for his primary MOS are on file.  The one for evaluation period February 1972 shows he received an MOS (63C) evaluation score of 86.  His average EER score was 116; the average for grade was 111.  The number of correct answers on his written test was 51; the average for grade was 72.  The Form 10 for evaluation period February 1973 shows he received an MOS (63C) evaluation score of 84.  His average EER score was 119; the average for grade was 114.  The number of correct answers on his written test was 57; the average for grade was 80.  The Form 10 for evaluation period February 1974 shows he received an MOS (63C) evaluation score of 80.  His average EER score was 122; the average for grade was 117.  The number of correct answers on his written test was 56; the average for grade was 77.

On 1 December 1978, 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.  The applicant does not contend that he was recommended for promotion.

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 middle years during which he was considered for promotion were years of drawdown after the Vietnam War.  Other than the EER provided by the applicant, his other EERs are not available.  While his USAEEC Forms 10 for the periods February 1972 through February 1974 show that his EER weighted average during these years was above average, they also show that his MOS scores were below average.  His adverse EER would not have been considered by any promotion board prior to November 1975 and presumably was not considered by any promotion board after his appeal was approved in September 1976.  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

__eb____  __jhk___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039265	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.