MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           7 November 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071764

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 graduated from Fire Support Sergeant Advance Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC), and that he be reinstated to the rank of E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  He had completed all of the academic requirements for ANCOC, and therefore should have been graduated from the class.  Since the revocation of his promotion to E-7 was based solely on his failure to graduate from ANCOC, once his records are corrected to show that he graduated from ANCOC, his rank of E-7 would have to be reinstated.

In support of his request the applicant submits statement from a classmate which corroborate the applicant’s contentions.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1985, served continuously on active duty and was promoted to pay grade E-7 effective 1 September 1998.  His promotion orders stated that soldiers who were promoted to pay grade E-7 who had not completed ANCOC were promoted on a conditional basis, and that “their orders [will be] revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to meet [the Noncommissioned Officer Education System] . . . requirement.”

The applicant entered ANCOC on 23 April 1999 and was released from that class on 18 June 1999.  The Service School Academic Evaluation Report he was given states that he failed to achieve course standards, even though he was given a satisfactory rating on all of the required demonstrated abilities of written and oral communication, leadership skills, contribution to group work, and research ability.  The stated reason for his failure was disciplinary reasons in that he missed formation on three occasions which was in violation of academy policy.

On 1 September 1999, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) sent the applicant a memorandum informing him that his name had been removed from the pay grade E-7 promotion list due to his release from ANCOC based upon violation of academy policy.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM.  The PERSCOM stated that the applicant was eliminated from 

ANCOC due to disciplinary reasons.  Based upon that elimination, the applicant was immediately reduced in rank and his name was removed from the E-7 promotion list.

The applicant was furnished a copy of the PERSCOM advisory opinion.  He responded, in pertinent part, by explaining that his dismissal from ANCOC was due to two counseling's for tardiness.  He states that his tardiness was due to miscommunication on the training locations and formation times designated by his student leader.  The applicant adds that he didn’t miss any training.  The applicant reiterates that since his promotion was contingent upon his completion of ANCOC’s academic requirements, and since he completed all of ANCOC’s academic requirements, his promotion should not have been revoked.

In accordance with the Manual for Court-Martial (MCM), Appendix 12, Maximum Punishment Chart, Article 86, Failure to go, is punishable by 1 month confinement and a forfeiture of 2/3rds of a soldiers pay for 1 month.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was terminated from ANCOC due to missing formation on three occasions.  Since missing formation is punishable by confinement and forfeiture of pay under the MCM, it is serious misconduct.  As such, the Board considers the applicant’s termination from ANCOC reasonable and appropriate.

2.  The Board must now consider whether the applicant’s promotion order should have been revoked because of his termination from the class, in consideration that he completed the academic requirements of the course.  In this regard, since the applicant’s promotion orders stated that his promotion was contingent upon his completion of the Noncommissioned Officer Educational System requirement, his termination from the class, for whatever reason, would be grounds to revoke his promotion order.  The Board does not see any error or injustice in that logic.

3.  As for the applicant’s statement that he missed formation because of miscommunication with his student leader, one episode of miscommunication would probably be considered excusable.  But when a student has three episodes of tardiness due to miscommunication, the tardiness is no longer explainable or excusable.

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

____tbr__  ___rvo  __  ___dhp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071764	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/07	
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.