IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006696 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 was passed over for promotion to SGM because there was a quota for minorities. He believes he should have been and should now be promoted to SGM based on his records, not based on the number of non-minority slots available. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, ending on 28 February 1987. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 7 December 1978 and held an aviation military occupational specialty. He served in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments and he was promoted to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 on 1 December 1980. 3. He was laterally appointed as a first sergeant (1SG)/E-8 and served in this capacity. He also attended the 24-week U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy in 1984. He was considered for promotion to SGM/E-9 but he was not selected for promotion. 4. He retired on 28 February 1987 and was placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of 1SG/E-8. He was credited with over 22 years and 8 months of active service. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), currently in effect, prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. It states: a. Chapter 4 provides the rules and steps for managing the Centralized Promotion System to sergeant first class/E-7, MSG/E-8, and SGM/E-9 for the active Army. The Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command promotes Soldiers to the grades of SFC, MSG, and SGM. A centralized promotion system has been in effect for promotion of enlisted Soldiers since 1 January 1969 for SGM. HRC will announce the results of a selection board by command memorandum. The memorandum will include the memorandum of instruction and a listing of those considered/selected. Names of Soldiers considered for promotion will be placed in alphabetical order. Soldiers who are recommended will be assigned sequence numbers for promotion to SFC, MSG, and SGM. Sequence numbers will be based on seniority within each recommended military occupational specialty will be determined by date of rank, basic active service date, then age (oldest first). HRC will determine and announce the total number of promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM on a monthly basis. b. The Army G-1 or designee (HRC) may approve cases for referral to a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) upon determining that a material error existed in a Soldier’s file when the file was reviewed by a promotion board. Error is considered material when there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed, the Soldier may have been selected. STABs are convened to consider records of those (1) Soldiers whose records were not reviewed by a regular board; (2) Soldiers whose records were not properly constituted, due to material error, when reviewed by the regular board; and (3) recommended Soldiers on whom derogatory information has developed that may warrant removal from a recommended list. Reconsideration normally will be granted in cases of absence of an award of a Meritorious Service Medal or higher (initial award only). If the award was recorded on the service record or was reviewed in hard copy by the board, a STAB is not authorized. The date used for determination of reconsideration will be the date of the order or the ending date, whichever is later, and will not be older than 3 months before the convening date of the board. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. With prior active service, the applicant served on active duty from 7 December 1978 through 28 February 1987 and attained the rank/grade of 1SG/E-8. His records appear to have been considered for promotion to SGM/E-9 but there is no evidence he was selected for promotion to SGM/E-9. 2. It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to SGM while he was on active duty; 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. 3. Additionally, it is a well-known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection. 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 Soldier, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known. 4. The applicant's argument related to quotas is speculative at best. A non-selected 1SG can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his or her 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. 5. Furthermore, this Board is not a promotion board. This Board corrects military records. For example, if there had been an error in his selection process or if he was inadvertently omitted from consideration for promotion, normally, the appropriate remedy would be to recommend his records be reconsidered by a STAB. This happens if there had been a material error. There does not appear to have been a material error in the applicant's case. 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) AR20150006696 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006696 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1