BOARD DATE: 4 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130009718 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9. 2. The applicant states he found out that the service failed to process his security clearance in a timely manner which made him non-competitive or qualified for promotion to SGM with his peers. 3. The applicant provides the back page of Standard Form 312 (Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Having had prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 26 October 1998 and he held military occupational specialties in artillery and transportation. 2. On 31 August 2000, the USAR Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO, issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year letter). 3. On 1 January 2003, he was promoted to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and on 29 April 2004, he reenlisted in the USAR. 4. On 8 November 2006, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) published Orders C-11-635461 transferring him to the Retired Reserve, effective 8 November 2006. The orders listed his rank as MSG. 5. There is no indication in his records that confirms he was selected for promotion to SGM. Likewise, there are no orders in his records confirming such promotion. 6. He provides the back page of security non-disclosure agreement, dated 17 May 2005. 7. An advisory opinion was obtained on 23 October 2013 from HRC in the processing of this case. An HRC official stated the records available at HRC indicated the applicant did have the proper security clearance to meet the criteria for promotion eligibility. He was considered for promotion to SGM but he was not selected. 8. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion but he did not respond. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Each board considers all eligible noncommissioned officers (NCO) for promotion consideration, but it may only select a number within established selection constraints. The selection process is an extremely competitive process based on the "whole Soldier" concept. It is an unavoidable fact that some NCOs considered for promotion will not be selected. There are always more outstanding NCOs who are fully qualified to perform duty at the next higher grade, but who are not selected because of selection capability restrictions. 2. It is a well-known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection. This means any statements by the applicant regarding his non-selection are speculative at best. Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records that were considered by those boards that did not select the applicant it must be presumed that what the board did was correct. Since promotion selection boards are not authorized by law to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection of any NCO, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known. A non-selected NCO can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his overall record, when compared with the records of contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion. 3. Finally, the Army promotion system is based on performance, merit, and potential, not time in service and not on speculations. It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to SGM; however, it is a well known fact that not everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are promotion allocations. Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the time. 4. The applicant was simply not selected for promotion. After a comprehensive review of the evidence in his official record, his contention and argument, and other than his dissatisfaction, the applicant failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that his non-selection for promotion was a result of material error, inaccuracy, injustice, and/or even inequity. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X___ __X______ __X______ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130009718 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130009718 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1