MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047481

	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. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 considered by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) for the Calendar Year 1998 (CY 98) Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 promotion board.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period June 1997 through January 1998 was not seen by the promotion board.  He met or exceeded the profile analysis of a 67U40.  The
CY 98 SFC 67U selection was the largest in his history.  He was told by his chain of command that his records looked good.  However, he was told by the Chief, Promotions Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that the presence of the NCOER for the period ending January 1998 would not have made a difference.  He provides an NCOER from an individual who was granted a STAB because that NCOER was missing; however, that NCOER is clearly inferior to the missing NCOER upon which he is basing his claim to a STAB.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 August 1981.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 April 1989.  He was assigned to the NCO Academy, Fort Eustis, VA as a small group leader, duty military occupational specialty (MOS) 67U3H in September 1994.

The applicant’s NCOER for the period ending May 1997 shows that he performed principal duties as a small group leader, MOS 67U3H, at the NCO Academy, Fort Eustis, VA.  He had received two “excellence” ratings and three “success” ratings in Part IV, an “among the best” potential rating in Part Va, and 1 block ratings in Parts Vc and Vd.

On 11 December 1997, the applicant’s NCOERs for the periods ending February 1994 and August 1994 were administratively corrected to change Part 1e to show his primary MOS as 67U30N100 vice 67U3N1A20 and 67U30N1A2, respectively.

The applicant’s NCOER for the period ending January 1998 shows that he performed principal duties as a small group leader, MOS 67U3H, at the NCO Academy, Fort Eustis, VA.  He had received one “excellence” rating and four “success” ratings in Part IV, an “among the best” potential rating in Part Va, and 1 block ratings in Parts Vc and Vd.

The applicant was considered for but not selected for promotion to SFC by the CY 98 SFC promotion selection board.  On 19 August 1998, he requested STAB consideration.  He based his request upon information he received that the January 1998 NCOER was not seen by the promotion board.  

The request for STAB consideration was received by PERSCOM which forwarded it to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) for review.  The ESRB noted that the January 1998 NCOER had been entered in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) on 25 March 1998.  The ESRB went on to state that the CY 98 SFC promotion board convened on 27 May 1998 and that the board did not see the NCOER.  The ESRB also noted that the CY 98 SFC promotion board was the applicant’s sixth time being considered for promotion in the primary zone.  The ESRB opined that the NCOER did not significantly improve his performance record so as to warrant promotion reconsideration and recommended denial of promotion reconsideration.  On 22 April 1999, PERSCOM disapproved his request for STAB consideration.

The applicant provides as supporting evidence an NCOER of a Staff Sergeant with an MOS of 68G30 and a date of rank of 1 December 1990.  The NCOER is for the period September 1991 through August 1992.  That Staff Sergeant had received one “excellence” rating and four “success” ratings, a “fully capable” potential rating in Part Va, and a 2 block and 3 block rating, respectively, in Parts Vc and Vd.

On 17 January 2001, PERSCOM Promotions Branch informed the Board that the NCOER for the period ending January 1998 was on the applicant’s promotion fiche, dated 22 April 1998, and therefore was seen by the CY 98 SFC promotion board.  Also on that fiche was the 11 December 1997 letter administratively correcting his NCOERs for the periods ending February 1994 and August 1994.  Promotions Branch believed that it may have been erroneously thought that the NCOER was not seen by the promotion board because the hard copy of the NCOER was not stamped as being provided to the board.  However, since the NCOER was already on his fiche the hard copy would not have been provided to the board.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part it states that 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.  Paragraph 4-16h states that reconsideration by a STAB normally will be granted when one or more of several conditions existed on the performance fiche of a soldier’s OMPF at the time it was reviewed by a promotion selection board.  Paragraph 4-16h(11) states that a regular NCOER that was submitted early enough for processing and filing before the convening date of the board but was not reviewed is one of the conditions for STAB consideration.

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.  PERSCOM reviewed the applicant’s CY 98 promotion board fiche and found that the January 1998 NCOER and the administrative corrections to his February 1994 and August 1994 NCOERs were on the fiche and therefore were seen by the promotion board.

3.  The Board notes that even if the January 1998 NCOER had not been seen by the promotion board, the regulation states only that normally is STAB consideration granted in such a case.  The Board agrees with the ESRB determination that the NCOER did not significantly improve his performance record so as to warrant promotion reconsideration.  In fact, the Board notes that the January 1998 NCOER reflected a slight downturn in performance from his previous NCOER. 

4.  No comparison can be made between the applicant’s circumstances and that of the individual he contends was granted a STAB based upon a missing NCOER.  The other individual’s NCOER may have been a significant improvement over his previous NCOER.  That NCOER was rendered less than   2 years after that individual had been promoted to Staff Sergeant and may have been the first one he received in that duty position.  The applicant’s NCOER was rendered 9 years after his promotion and after he had been in the same position for 4 years.  It did not reflect a significant improvement over his previous NCOER.

5.  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

__jl____  __gdp___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047481	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.