MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:          29 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000050436

	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	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 he be reinstated on the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) attendance list, and the sergeant first class (SFC) promotion selection list.

APPLICANT STATES: That he had been selected for promotion to SFC with the condition that he complete the ANCOC.  He failed the course due to two failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  After the second failure of the APFT he sought medical attention.  A preliminary diagnosis was made that he might have exercise induced asthma.  He asserts that the NCO Academy refused to consider his physical disability prior to releasing him from the course and giving him an adverse Academic Evaluation Report (AER).  After departing ANCOC and returning to his unit he continued to seek medical care.  As a result it was established that he had Reactive Airway Disease.  He went before a Medical Evaluation Board and a Physical Evaluation Board which found him fit for duty and gave him a permanent profile that allows him to do the 2.5 mile walk instead of the 2 mile run.  He appealed his release from ANCOC on the grounds that he should not have been removed from the class because of a then undiagnosed physical condition for which he later received a profile and with which he could still perform his job.  His argument was disregarded and his appeal denied.  It is this error for which he seeks redress.  Without correction he can not get promoted because he has not completed ANCOC, but he cannot be selected to attend the course because he has not been selected for promotion.  In support of his application he submits letters of support from a fellow student and his peers.

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

He entered the Regular Army on 24 June 1982, was trained as a 31W (Telecommunications Operation Chief) and achieved the conditional rank of SFC. He was selected to serve as an Army recruiter prior to attending ANCOC and is currently a staff sergeant on active duty.

The 1998 SFC promotion selection list indicated that he was selected for promotion to SFC.  He was promoted to SFC with a date of rank of 1 October 1998 under U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Order 258-25.  The order contained special instructions indicating that those SSG promoted to SFC who do not have ANCOC credit are promoted conditionally; and that those who receive conditional promotion will have their orders revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to meet the ANCOC requirement.  His chain of command notified him that he would be attending ANCOC on 10 August 1999.

His NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period December 1991 to November 1992 reflects that the applicant failed the APFT.  His height was recorded as 73” and weight as 227 pounds.

The NCOER for the period January to May 1997 reflects that the applicant passed the APFT.  His height was recorded as 73” and weight as 230 pounds.

His NCOER for the period June 1997 to August 1998 reflects that he passed the APFT and his height was 73” and weight was 250 pounds.

His NCOER for the period September 1998 to August 1999 shows that he passed the APFT and his height was 73” and weight was 251 pounds.

His AER for the period 12 August through 8 September 1999 reflects that the applicant failed to achieve course standards.  It states that the applicant failed the push-up and 2 mile run events on the initial APFT taken on 12 August 1999.  He was retested on 17 August 1999 and failed the 2 mile run again.  His height was recorded as 73” and his weight was 243 pounds.

On 27 September 1999 the applicant was informed by PERSCOM that after considering all matters submitted in extenuation and mitigation in his case his request for reinstatement in the ANCOC had been disapproved.

The APFT Scorecard reflects that the applicant passed all of the events of the 22 February 2000.  His height was recorded as 73” and his weight was 261 pounds.

On 1 March 2000 the applicant was informed by PERSCOM that he had been removed from the SFC promotion selection list.

Army Regulation 600-9-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides, in pertinent part, that in order for a soldier to be promoted to the rank of SFC, he/she must be a graduate of an ANCOC.  However, conditional promotions may be made in selected cases, subject to completion of the course.  If the soldier is disenrolled from the course, promotion action will be revoked.

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.  The applicant’s contention that his reactive airway disease was the sole factor in his failure of the APFT, which formed the basis for his release from ANCOC and his removal from the SFC promotion selection list, is not supported by the available evidence.  The applicant’s previous failure of the APFT, his increasing age and weight and his possible lack of physical conditioning appears to have been contributing factors.  Even though the applicant may have had some extenuating circumstances related to his ANCOC disenrollment, the evidence he has submitted is insufficient to warrant his reinstatement in ANCOC.  There is no error or injustice in this situation.
2.  The applicant’s contention that the NCO Academy refused to consider his physical disability was noted by the Board.  However, at the time of his release the applicant had only been given a preliminary diagnosis, and had not been awarded a permanent profile or determined to be fit for duty.  Individuals with temporary profiles are prohibited from attending ANCOC.  Therefore, the applicant was properly released from 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

___jns___  ___cjp___  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050436	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.