MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041251

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 that he successfully completed the Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course (ANCOC).

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he attended the ANCOC he was given only two chances to complete the course and he was told that he could continuously take the course until it was successfully completed.  He states that all of the other Sergeants were given more than two chances to complete the ANCOC and that the other Sergeants were coached by the instructors.  

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

On 1 April 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a fighting vehicle systems mechanic.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  

The records show that on 1 September 1984, the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-6.  The records further show that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-5 on 19 January 1989.

On 16 August 1989, the applicant successfully completed the Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course.  He was subsequently promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 May 1991.

On 9 November 1996, orders were published promoting the applicant to the pay grade of E-7 effective 1 December 1995.  The special instructions within the orders indicate that Staff Sergeants promoted to Sergeant First Class who do not have ANCOC credit are promoted conditionally.  The orders also indicate that those soldiers who receive a conditional promotion will have their orders revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to meet the ANCOC requirements.

On 31 January 1997, the applicant was honorably released from active duty after obtaining sufficient service for retirement.  He had completed 20 years and 10 months of total active service.  He was placed on the Retired list in the pay grade of E-6 effective1 February 1997.

A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever attended the ANCOC.  However, the available records show that he was retired in the pay grade of E-6, which would indicate that his promotion was in fact revoked.

On 31 January 1997, the applicant was honorably released from active duty after obtaining sufficient service for retirement.  He had completed 20 years and 10 months of total active service.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, there is no evidence of record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to show that an error exists in his records or that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to successfully complete the ANCOC.

3.  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.

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

__slp ___  __mw ___  __tlp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041251	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/11/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  193	111.0000	
2.  206	111.0100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.