BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010632 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ____x____ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010632 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010632 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 reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military records to show he was considered for and promoted to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9. 2. The applicant states: a. Although much time has passed since his first date of eligibility, he has continuously made attempts to rectify what he feels is an injustice. He presented several documents (awards and accomplishments) as evidence of his duty performance. These documents show he often worked in positions greater than the rank he held, as well as performing those duties in a meritorious manner (e.g., serving as a fire control noncommissioned officer, an E-7 position, while he held grade E-6; serving as an operations sergeant, an E-8 position, while he held grade E-7; and receiving Meritorious Service Medals for each position). b. His records were never completely reviewed by the MSG/E-8 promotion boards because nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and a substandard noncommissioned officer evaluation report were placed in his official records in 1988. The NJP was set aside after an investigation determined the charges were bogus. He made several attempts to have the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) removed from his official file, but was told the record had to remain to show the proceedings took place. He filed a 27-page appeal to remove the substandard evaluation report, but that was denied as well. A short review of his records will show his performance of duties during that period was exemplary. c. He believes a short review of the promotions for his military occupational specialty during his years of eligibility would provide an answer as to how many promotions were granted, and a brief comparison of any record of a Soldier who was promoted to MSG/E-8 will serve as a foundation for determination. d. He feels he wasn't given fair consideration for promotion because his records were not fully considered once the promotion board saw the record of NJP. 3. The applicant provides: * a self-authored letter, dated 13 June 2015 * certificates of achievement, appreciation, and training * diplomas * letters of commendation, appreciation, and achievement * service personnel records * orders for the Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal, and Army Good Conduct Medal (5th Award) * DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award of Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Meritorious Service Medal) * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings, dated 8 July 2014 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140007300 on 8 July 2014. 2. The applicant's arguments and the documentation he provided were not previously considered by the Board and warrant consideration at this time. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 1978. 4. U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency Order Number 164-18, dated 30 September 1988, promoted him to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 effective 1 November 1988 with a date of rank of 5 October 1988. 5. On 27 October 1988, NJP was imposed against him for failing to obey a lawful order and being derelict in his duties. The issuing commander directed filing the DA Form 2627 in the restricted folder of his Official Military Personnel File. 6. U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency Order Number 198-37, dated 23 November 1988, revoked U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency Order Number 164-18, dated 30 September 1988. 7. U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 8-5, dated 18 January 1989, promoted him to SFC effective 18 January 1989 with a date of rank of 28 October 1988. 8. His records contain a DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 13 March 1989, setting aside his punishment under Article 15 imposed on 27 October 1988. 9. U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 26-9, dated 14 February 1990, revoked U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 8-5, dated 18 January 1989. 10. U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 26-10, dated 14 February 1990, promoted him to SFC effective 14 February 1990 with a date of rank of 5 October 1988. 11. On 24 October 1990, the ABCMR corrected his records to show he was promoted to SFC effective 1 November 1988 with a date of rank of 5 October 1988. 12. His records contain: a. a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 18 November 1996, showing he requested an early retirement date of 30 June 1997. This form states he is not promotable, meaning he was not on a recommended promotion list; and b. a DA Form 2339 (Application for Voluntary Retirement), dated 4 December 1996. 13. He retired on 30 June 1997 in the rank of SFC. 14. There is no evidence of record showing he was recommended and selected for promotion to MSG or SGM. 15. On 8 July 2014, the ABCMR denied his request for correction of his military records to show he was considered for and promoted to MSG/E-8 and to SGM/E-9. 16. He provided and his records contain numerous certificates of achievement, appreciation, and training; diplomas; letters of commendation, appreciation, and achievement; and orders for various awards. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, stated appointments, promotions, grade reductions, and grade restorations were announced in routine orders for enlisted personnel in grades E-3 through E-9. 2. Army Regulation 640-10 (Individual Military Personnel Records), table 4-1 in effect at the time, stated that if a DA Form 2627 issued on or after 1 November 1982 was wholly set aside and was filed in the restricted folder, the DA Form 2627-2 setting it aside would also be filed in the restricted folder. Documents in the restricted folder were those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a member's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; and to protect the interests of the member and the Army. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his military records should be corrected by showing he was considered for and promoted to MSG/E-8 and to SGM/E-9 because he often worked in positions greater than the rank he held and he performed those duties in a meritorious manner. 2. He wants the ABCMR to review his records against those of other Soldiers who were selected for promotion to MSG during the applicable time period. However, the ABCMR is not an investigative body; the ABCMR does not review individual records pertaining to service members other than the applicant. 3. He also claims his records were never completely reviewed by the MSG/E-8 promotion boards because of a record of an NJP, that was later set aside, and a substandard noncommissioned officer evaluation report placed in his official records in 1988. The governing regulation stated that if a DA Form 2627 issued on or after 1 November 1982 was wholly set aside and was filed in the restricted folder, the DA Form 2627-2 setting it aside would also be filed in the restricted folder. Documents in the restricted folder were those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a member's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; and to protect the interest of the member and the Army. 4. The evidence indicates the documents (awards, certificates, etc.) he provided and the substandard noncommissioned officer evaluation report he referenced were properly filed in his records and were available for consideration by the MSG promotion boards. 5. There is no evidence showing he was recommended and selected for promotion to MSG/E-8 or SGM/E-9 by proper authority prior to his retirement on 30 June 1997. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010632 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010632 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2