MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            31 October 2002                
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073130

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, that he be reconsidered for promotion to sergeant first class (SFC/E-7).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the members of the 2001 Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection Board were prejudiced in their decision to deny him promotion because of an erroneous reenlistment eligibility code of "9X" in Item A11 of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB).  He believes that this "9X" code was extremely damaging and, if nothing else, created a propensity to deny him a just review and promotion.  He also states that his ERB was forwarded to the promotion board without his verification signature because he was in Drill Sergeant School and not available to sign it.

In support of his application, the applicant submitted the following documents:  1) definition of 9X code; 2) ERB, dated 16 May 2001, with 9X code, forwarded to FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board; 3) ERB, dated 18 April 2002, with "9X" code; 4) ERB, dated 22 April 2002, correcting "9X" code to "10;" 5) Letter, dated 18 April 2002, Subject: Reenlistment Code; 6) Letter, dated 22 April 2002, Subject: RE: 9X code; 7) Retain memorandum from reenlistment representative; and 8) a copy of orders for Drill Sergeant School.  The applicant states that he has discussed this issue with his previous and current commanders, military personnel office representatives, and reenlistment counselors, and no reasonable response could explain how the "9X" code was entered on his ERB in error.  He also states that he was told to pursue correction of this injustice through this Board.

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

On 15 September 1999, at Fort Campbell, the applicant reenlisted in the United States Army (USA) for an indefinite period of time.  At the time of reenlistment, the applicant had 15 years, 8 months, and 6 days of active military service 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the rank of staff sergeant/E-6 performing duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Drill Sergeant, at the 10th Infantry Regiment, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

On an unknown date, the applicant's promotion package was forwarded to the SFC/E-7 FY2001 promotion board.  However, he was not selected for promotion to SFC/E-7.  At the time of this board, the applicant was in the secondary promotion zone.  

On 18 April 2002, the applicant reviewed his ERB and noticed that Item A11 reflected a "9X" code indicating the applicant was ineligible for reenlistment.  On 22 April 2002, the applicant's ERB was corrected to reflect a "10" code in Item A11.

On 24 April 2002, the applicant applied to this Board for relief.

On 27 June 2002, the US Total Army Personnel Command, Promotions Branch, provided this office an advisory opinion.  The Promotions Branch staff stated that the applicant's records and the official documentation maintained by their headquarters revealed that the FY 2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board considered the applicant; however, he was not selected.  The staff further stated that the applicant's contention that the erroneous reenlistment code "9X" affected his chances for promotion is unfounded and does not constitute a material error that warrants reconsideration.

The applicant was selected for promotion to SFC on the FY2002 SFC Selection Board during his primary zone consideration.

Army Regulation 680-29 prescribes the data code structures used to report and record personnel data via the automated Personnel Information System (PERSINS).  This regulation complements AR 680-5 by supplying the data elements and code structures used in the record formats prescribed by that regulation.  "9X" is a data code that prohibits a soldier from being eligible for an immediate reenlistment.

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.  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.  The Board noted the applicant's contention that the "9X" code created a material unfairness by being on his ERB when his record went before the FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board.  However, the applicant provided no substantial corroborating evidence to support his contention.  The Board also noted that AR 680-29 states that a soldier should review his package 3 to 6 months prior to the promotion board to ensure that there are no discrepancies in his file.  Although the applicant was at Drill Sergeant School, he had ample time prior to leaving for school to prepare his package for the promotion board.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant's last reenlistment was an indefinite reenlistment; therefore, his contention that the 9X code implied that he could not reenlist was irrelevant to the promotion board because he had no need to reenlist.

4.  While on the surface it may appear that the "9X" code affected the applicant's chances for promotion to SFC when he went before the FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board, there is no way one can tell exactly why the applicant was not selected.  Any number of things could have affected the reason why the board did not select the applicant for promotion to SFC from the secondary zone, and this Board is not privy to that information.

5.  After a thorough review of the applicant's file, the Board determined that there was no material unfairness in the applicant's file when the FY2001 SFC Promotion Selection Board considered him, as a secondary zone SSG, for promotion to SFC.  Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant's promotion from the primary zone with a 10 code in Item A11 on his ERB does not support the applicant's contention for material error or an injustice.  

6.  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

__clg___  __rks___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073130	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021031	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.1100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.