PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            10 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018227

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Ed Clark .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his conditional promotion to the grade of sergeant first class (SFC) be restored; and that he be provided the opportunity to attend the advanced noncommissioned officers course (ANCOC).  He states, in essence, that because of severe medical conditions, which included kidney failure and a toxic blood condition which required kidney dialysis treatment in 1997, he was subsequently denied entrance into the ANCOC for not being in compliance with Army body fat standards; and that he feels that his ANCOC class date should have been deferred until he had recovered from his medical problems.

3.  The applicant was promoted to the grade of SFC effective 1 June 1997.  The promotion was contingent on his completing the ANCOC within a 1-year period of time.

4.  A memorandum dated 14 April 1998, signed by the ANCOC commandant, shows that it was determined on that date that the applicant exceeded the body fat content standard (by approximately 2 percent) on that date; and that he was therefore denied enrollment in the ANCOC.  The Body Fat Content Worksheet shows the applicant's height and weight as 71 inches and 225 pounds.  The orders promoting the applicant to the grade of SFC were then revoked.

5.  A Body Fat Content Worksheet, dated 16 April 1998 and signed by the applicant's unit first sergeant, shows the applicant's height and weight as 
72 inches and 223 pounds.  The document shows the statement "Individual is in compliance with Army standards."

6.  A Body Fat Content Worksheet, dated 22 April 1998 and signed by a staff dietician, shows the applicant's weight as 217 pounds.

7.  A 23 April 1998 statement signed by the applicant's attending physician at the time is attached which describes the severity of the applicant's medical condition in detail and need not be reiterated.  He wrote, in part, that the applicant's body weight climbed to 252 pounds on 29 January 1998; that "Since then, with the aid of medications and time, and his ability to exercise without pain, he has been able to bring his weight down to 227 pounds on 21 April 1998…This weight gain certainly is understandable and forgivable, when a reasonable person is apprised of the terrible physical insult [his] body sustained and overcame during this past year."  He recommended that the applicant be allowed to attend the ANCOC without delay.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (interim change 01, 8 Apr 94), paragraph
4-7, provides that effective 1 Oct 93, a SSG must be a graduate of the ANCOC prior to promotion; that conditional promotions are authorized; that conditional promotions to SFC are contingent upon the successful completion of the ANCOC; that soldiers who receive a conditional promotion will have their orders revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to complete the ANCOC requirement; and that soldiers who fail to complete the required course for bonafide medical or compassionate reasons will not have their promotions revoked.  However, these promotions remain conditional until completion of the required course.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant failed to complete the required ANCOC because of bonafide medical reasons.  Accordingly, his promotion should not have been revoked.

2.  Notwithstanding the obvious variance in the applicant's weight in April 
1998, shown by his unit first sergeant as 223 pounds, by a dietician as 
217 pounds, and by a physician as 227 pounds, based on the recommendation of the applicant's attending physician, the applicant is medically qualified to undergo the rigors of the ANCOC.  It is reasonable to presume that the applicant was also physically able, as of the date of the recommendation, 23 April 1998, to be able to meet Army body fat standards.  The Board notes that approximately 
10 months have elapsed between that date and the date of the Board's decision; therefore, the issue of the applicant's prior medical condition is rendered moot and the applicant should now meet Army body fat standards.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by revoking the action by which the individual concerned was reduced to the rank of staff sergeant based on his failure to complete the ANCOC;

b.  by awarding him appropriate back pay and allowances;

c.  by providing him the opportunity to attend the ANCOC as soon as possible; and

d.  by revoking his promotion to the grade of sergeant first class in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (interim change 01, 8 Apr 94), paragraph 4-7, if he fails to successfully complete the ANCOC after being afforded the opportunity outlined in paragraph c, above.
BOARD VOTE:  

JHL_____  MW_____  KLW____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018227	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 March 10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	133.00	
2.	129.02	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.