MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             2 October 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001061746

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 corrected to show that he was reinstated to pay grade E-7 and was rescheduled into another Advance Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).

APPLICANT STATES: That he has passed all prerequisites to attend school; that an erroneous flag was put in his records; and that an inspector general result shows inconsistency.

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

A DA Form 1059 (Academic Report) for the period 4 September to 16 November 1992 indicated he failed his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). 

DA Forms 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) for the period December 1994 to June 1995, show he failed to meet weight restrictions for 72 inches, at 209 pounds.  Reports for the period February 1996 through January 2000 show weights ranging from 210 to 218 pounds with heights of 72 and 73 inches; however, there are no body fat test results available.

On 1 October 1999, he was conditionally promoted to sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7.  The condition of his promotion was attendance at the ANCOC.  If he failed to meet this condition, his promotion orders would be revoked and his name removed from the centralized list.  

On 15 March 2000, a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Score Card) indicates he exceeded the weight standards (229 pounds) and the body fat standards (24.52).

On 15 March 2000, his commander flagged him for exceeding the Army Weight Control Program standards.

On 27 March 2000, his group commander requested he be deleted from attending the ANCOC based on his failure to successfully complete the APFT and for exceeding the maximum allowable body fat percentage in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 (Weight Control).

On 23 May 2000, PERSCOM Order Number 144-9, revoked the applicants promotion to pay grade E-7 and granted him defacto status for the period            1 October 1999 to 15 March 2000.

On 24 May 2000, PERSCOM Memorandum, Subject: Administrative Removal from the Promotion Selection List, removed the applicant from the promotion list based on his failure to attend the scheduled ANCOC.

On 30 May 2000, an unsigned redacted copy of a Report of Inquiry regarding case FK000072 indicated, in pertinent part, under recommendations, that [redacted] and [redacted] reconsider the decision not to allow applicant to attend NCO Advance Course, take appropriate action to retain in grade and send to next available NCO Advance Course.  Added to this recommendation was this unsigned and undated statement:  “Non-Concur  [1].  I have reconsidered but determined [applicant] had ample opportunity to help himself with his weight/body fat and did not made any progress to remove himself from “marginal” compliance or non-compliance.”

On 31 August 2000, he was notified that he was being barred from reenlistment based on the removal from the promotion selection list on 24 May 2000 and his failure to pass the APFT shown on DA Form 1059, dated 16 November 1992. 

On 29 September 2000, the applicant submitted a reclama for non-attendance at ANCOC through his chain of command.  The junior members in his chain recommended approval; however, the senior member strongly non-concurred with his request based on his repeatedly failing to achieve Army standards with regards to the APFT and compliance with height/weight standards.

On 9 January 2001, the Chief, Training Analysis Management Branch, PERSCOM advised the applicant’s unit that the Headquarters, Department of the Army NCOES Reinstatement Panel disapproved his request.

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP. This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards. It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram. Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards. The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.

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 is neither entitled to reinstatement to SFC nor rescheduling into an ANCOC.  He has provided nothing to support that his administrative reduction or his removal from the promotion list was either error or injustice.

2.  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.

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

_mkp____  _kak___  _rtd____     	DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061746	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011008	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.