MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041766

	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:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had 10 years time in grade as an E-6.  He does not know what kept him from being promoted. 

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 July 1958.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K, Tactical Wire Operations Specialist in June 1959.   He was awarded primary MOS 31G, Tactical Communications Chief in March 1969.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 21 March 1969. He retired on 1 August 1978 in the rank and grade of SSG, E-6.

There is no evidence of disciplinary actions in the applicant’s records.  However, his Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, shows that he had been reduced to Private, E-2 on 30 October 1959 and again on 12 May 1960.  He served three tours in Vietnam.  During his 1967 – 1968 tour he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.  That is the only personal decoration he was awarded during his 20 years service.  During his July 1970 – March 1972 tour, he was given a conduct rating of “unsat” and an efficiency rating of “fair.”  Twice previously his efficiency had been rated as “fair.”  Item 17 of his DA Form 2-1 shows his military education as one 2-week and one 1-week course.  

The applicant’s Enlisted Evaluation Report for the period ending June 1978 shows that he received the maximum rating of 125.  His Enlisted Evaluation Data Report, USAEREC Form 10, dated August 1976 shows that his EER weighted average was 91 versus an Army-wide average for his MOS, skill level and pay grade of 114.  His USAEREC Form 10 dated August 1974 shows that his EER weighted average was 116 versus an Army-wide average of 112.  His USAEREC Form 10 dated August 1973 shows that his EER weighted average was 105 versus an Army-wide average of 108.

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 7 in effect at the time prescribed the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part it stated that centralized promotion boards (for promotion consideration to grades E-7, E-8 and E-9) would select the best qualified soldier in each MOS for promotion.  They would recommend a specified number of soldiers by MOS from zones of consideration who were the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.  The total number selected in each MOS was the projected number the Army needed to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength at any given time.

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.  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.  Without evidence to show otherwise, the Board concludes that the soldiers who were recommended for promotion to SFC were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the best qualified in their MOS.

3.  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

__lls___  __jea___  __bjl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041766	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.