MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            21 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067969

	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. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyl		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 he be retroactively promoted to pay grade E-7.

APPLICANT STATES: That he believes he suffered an unjust act of not being promoted.  He was promoted to pay grade E-6 on 7 July 1986 and nearly          13 years later retired in the same grade.  He has never refused any assignments, where the Army sent him he went.  He visited his branch manager and he indicated that he didn’t see any reason that he shouldn’t be promoted.  He would like to know what was so wrong with him or his records that he couldn’t be promoted, but the soldiers he trained could.

He indicates that he understands the Centralized Promotion System and that it is not intended to reward for long honorable service in the present rank, but is based on demonstrated performance in the present rank and potential ability at the higher rank.  He lists his military assignments, awards, efficiency, service and education.  He provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 30 April 1999, a copy of his DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record), dated 26 August 1998, a copy of an NCO Evaluation Data Report used by the Sergeant First Class (SFC) Promotion Board, dated 26 September 1997 and a Certificate of Recognition from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and The Quartermaster General for the Supply Excellence Award.

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

During the period 1 February to 2 April 1979, he served in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.

On 3 April 1979, he enlisted in the Army with a moral waiver.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

On 7 July 1986, he was promoted to pay grade E-6.

The applicant was considered but not selected by each SFC Promotion Board from 1988 until his retirement.  

On 30 April 1999, he was honorably separated in pay grade E-6 under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12, based on sufficient service for retirement.  He was transferred to the Retired Reserve on 1 May 1999.  His DD Form 214 indicates he had 20 years and 28 days of creditable 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.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion on 11 occasions.  The board does not disclose the reason for non-selection and he has not shown he was not fairly considered or that his records contained material error when reviewed by the promotion boards.

2.  The applicant states that his branch manager didn’t see any reason that he shouldn’t be promoted; however, he provides no evidence of this counseling.

3.  The Board does not dispute that he may have a competitive record, however, it notes that, as shown in this case, promotion is not automatic based on qualifications alone, but includes a competitive process of a promotion board determining an individual’s potential and ability to perform at the higher grade, and the needs of the service.  Particularly pertinent is this case is that with keen competition for promotion, many noncommissioned officers will not be selected. 

4.  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

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

_jlp___       _bje__  _  _tl__          DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067969	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.