MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  16 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034875

	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
Mr. Lee Cates		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 a Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) decision memorandum be back-dated because his request was not processed until the FY99 SFC Promotion Board.

APPLICANT STATES:  The DASEB determined his unfavorable information should be moved to his Restricted Fiche; however, it was not accomplished until 6 months later.  The unfavorable information was seen by the promotion board and possibly the reason for his non-selection.

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

On 25 June 1981, he enlisted in the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded MOS 19E (Armor Crewman).

In an undated comment on a Disposition Form, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was disqualifying him for award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL) for the period 25 June 1981 to 24 June 1984, based on his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment for unlawful possession of drugs.

Permanent Orders 82-50, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas announced award of the GCMDL for the period 25 June 1981 to 24 June 1984.  The unit commander, who disqualified him from the award, signed the GDMDL Certificate.

On 4 January 1999, the applicant submitted a request to the DASEB requesting removal from his Performance Fiche of the Disposition Form which recorded his NJP for wrongful possession of a controlled substance for which he received a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of $279 pay for two months (suspended), restriction for 2 months, and extra duty for 90 days.

On 2 June 1999, the FY99 SFC Promotion Board met to consider eligible SSG’s for promotion to SFC.

On 24 June 1999, the DASEB voted to transfer Memoranda Disqualification for GCMDL, undated, from the performance portion of the Official Military Personnel File to the restricted portion.  The transfer was based on intent served and does not constitute grounds for a referral to a Special Selection Board for reconsideration of a previous non-selection.

On 16 September 1999, the applicant submitted a request for Standby Advisory Board (STAB) promotion reconsideration based on not receiving the DASEB decision until 3 July 1999, after the FY99 SFC Promotion Board.  Further, he indicates he was awarded membership in the Sergeant Audie Murphy Club and received a certificate of achievement and training, which were awarded but not presented to the FY99 SFC Promotion Board for consideration at the time.

On 30 September 1999, the Commander, Total Army Personnel Command disapproved the applicant’s request citing DASEB basing their decision on intent served and that it did not constitute grounds for a referral to a Special Selection Board for reconsideration of a previous non-selection.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of senior enlisted personnel on active duty.  This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration due to administrative error, the fact that action by a previous board was contrary to law, or because material error existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual's non-selection by a promotion board and, that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 also indicates, in pertinent part, that an individual may forward a letter to the president of the board inviting attention to any matter he/she feels is important in considering his/her records.

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 Board notes there was a period of almost 15-years from the time the GCMDL was awarded to the time the applicant requested removal of the disqualification correspondence.

2.  The DASEB decision specifically stated that moving the documents was based on intent served and that it did not constitute grounds for a referral to a Special Selection Board for reconsideration of a previous non-selection.

3.  There is no evidence that the applicant availed himself of the opportunity to forward a letter to the President of the FY99 SFC Selection Board.

4.  The reason for selection or non-selection by a promotion board is not divulged; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the existence of the disqualification correspondence affected board result.  Review of the contested disqualification was proper.

5.  There is no evidence to show the applicant’s records were not complete or contained material error, or that the FY99 SFC Promotion Board did not otherwise properly consider him.

6.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

7.  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

__AO___  ___LE___  ___VC __  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				      Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034875	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000516	
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         1.131	Promotion to SFC	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.