APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion reconsideration to the pay grades of E-7 and E-8 by a Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB). APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was barred from reenlistment under the qualitative management program (QMP) for over 15 months and was not considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 during the calendar year (CY) 1988, 1989, and 1990 promotion selection boards. He further states that he successfully appealed the bar to reenlistment and was subsequently selected by the CY 1991 E-7 promotion selection board and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. He goes on to state that based on his successful appeal of the bar to reenlistment, he should receive reconsideration for earlier promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and possibly selection for promotion to the pay grade of E-8. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant enlisted on 31 October 1979 for a period of 4 years and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 20 October 1984. On 20 October 1988 the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment based on two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) contained in his official records that indicated he had failed the Army physical fitness test and that he did not meet the weight control standards of Army Regulation 600-9. The applicant was serving as a recruiter in Arizona at the time he was notified. The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment to the STAB on 20 January 1989. His appeal was initially denied on 20 September 1989; however, he resubmitted his appeal which was approved by the STAB on 9 April 1990. Although, the basis for the applicant’s appeal is not contained in the official records, the STAB did not alter, correct, or remove from his records the documents that served as the basis for the bar to reenlistment from his records. The applicant was subsequently promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). It opined that the applicant was considered for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 by the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board and was barred to reenlistment under the QMP by that board. At that point, by virtue of being barred from reenlistment, he was ineligible for consideration by the CY 1989 E-7 board. However, after successfully appealing his bar to reenlistment in April 1990, the applicant was considered and selected by the CY 1990 E-7 board in October 1990. He received a promotion sequence number of 100 in military occupational specialty OOR and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991. The PERSCOM further opined that the lifting of the bar to reenlistment was not retroactive and does not constitute a basis for referral to a STAB. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied. Army Regulation 600-200 serves as the authority for selection and promotion to pay grades E-7 through E-9. It states, in pertinent part, that personnel who are barred to reenlistment prior to the convening date of a selection board are not eligible for consideration by that board. Paragraph 7-44 of that regulation also states, in pertinent part, that a STAB will only consider records of soldiers in the primary zone of consideration that were not properly constituted due to a major material error, when reviewed by a regular board. An error is considered material when in the judgment of a mature individual familiar with selection board proceedings, there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed, the soldier may have been selected. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. The bar to reenlistment was properly imposed in accordance with applicable regulations. Although the applicant successfully appealed the bar to reenlistment, the bar to reenlistment was not based on material error and the documents that served as the basis for the bar were not altered, corrected, or removed from the applicant’s records. Accordingly, the applicant was not eligible for promotion consideration while the bar to reenlistment remained in effect. Likewise, he is not eligible for promotion reconsideration by a STAB for the period (CY 1989) the bar to reenlistment was in effect. 2. The applicant’s contention that he was not considered by the CY 1988 and CY 1990 E-7 promotion selection board is without merit. The applicant was considered by the CY 1988 E-7 promotion selection board and that board imposed the bar to reenlistment under the QMP. The applicant was subsequently considered by the CY 1990 board and selected for promotion by that board. 3. 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. 4. 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 DENY APPLICATION David R. Kinneer Executive Secretary