PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           29 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041127

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                       records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his application to correct his records by reinstating his promotion to the rank of sergeant first class with retroactive payment and attendance at the advanced noncommissioned officer course (ANCOC) at the earliest possible date.

3.  The applicant states that he believes that the body fat determination done by the ANCOC personnel was in error and that the test conducted the following day by the Master Fitness School (MFS) was proper and more accurate.  He again states that the ANCOC testing was done in wet physical training (PT) clothing.

4. The Memorandum of Consideration reflecting the Board’s 25 August 1999 review of the applicant’s request is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.

5.  The applicant submits several documents and correspondence obtained by his Command Sergeant Major (CSM) on his behalf.  These include personal statements of support from his chain of command and a statement from the CSM of the Training and Doctrine Command that stated that in their opinion the inconsistencies in the testing were such as to warrant a favorable reconsideration.  A statement from the Noncommissioned Officers Evaluation System Reinstatement Panel opined that there was evidence of inconsistencies in the applicant’s height/weight taping procedures.  In an e-mail statement from the Regimental CSM, 75th Rangers Regiment, the CSM describes a conversation with ANCOC personnel that indicated that ANCOC did not have written directives or standing operating procedures for testing student personnel but referred to Army Regulation 600-9 for guidance.  The applicant also submits photographs in both his class A uniform and in PT gear.

6.  The above noted documents were not previously available to the Board and constitute new evidence or argument that requires Board review.

7.  The applicant’s record shows this soldier over the past eight years has never scored less than 280 points on his physical fitness tests and, as noted on his annual evaluations, for past four years he achieved maximum scores on all such tests.  His enlisted evaluations describe his personal appearance as exemplary. 

8.  Copies of the applicant’s 1 April 1998 ANCOC body fat measurements and those done by the Master Fitness School (MFS) are included in the supporting information.  There are significant differences in the measurements between these three test results.  The ANCOC reports show him as 67 inches tall, 181 pounds, with a neck measurement of 15.75 inches and an abdomen of 36.50 inches on the first test and 67 inches tall, 180 pounds with a 16-inch neck and 37 inch abdomen in the second trial.  The testing done by the MFS show him as 67 inches tall, 176 pounds, with a neck of 15.25 and abdomen of 35.25.  These results vary by over 5 pounds in weight but more importantly ¾ of an inch on the neck measurement and 1-¾ inches at the abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that, due to the differences between the two measurements done by ANCOC and the additional differences, as recorded less than 24 hours later, at the MFS, there is reason to question the validity of the body fat test results.  The Board is of the opinion that upon receipt of the conflicting findings from the MFS, ANCOC personnel should have reevaluated their testing results and afforded the applicant a new evaluation with proper three tape sequences as directed by the standard directives.

2.  It is clear, from the fact that they used two tape trials and not the required three, that ANCOC personnel did not follow the governing directive.  

3.  In discussion of the case with the Review Boards Agency’s medical advisors, they advised that while a soldier might be able to lose five or more pounds in less 24 hours, it is highly improbable that a soldier could alter neck and abdomen measurements significantly in such a short period. 

4.  This soldier has never been considered to be in anything less than top shape throughout his entire career.  He has consistently scored extremely high on all physical fitness tests and his physical appearance has always been above reproach.  The Board concludes that to penalize him based on questionable test results creates an injustice. 

5.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant should not have been disenrolled from ANCOC for failing body fat measurement and that his rank should be restored.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error and rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

a.  deleting from the records of the individual concerned all references to his failure of the body fat testing;

b.  restoring him to the rank of sergeant first class with retroactive pay and allowances lost by the reduction; and,

	c.  scheduling the individual concerned for attendance at the next available ANCOC.

BOARD VOTE:  

__JDM__  ___RA___  __CG___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_      _John D. Miller________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID 	AR2000041127	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000829 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.