APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Promotion reconsideration for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 beginning with the boards convened in 1993 and all subsequent boards that have nonselected him for promotion.

APPLICANT STATES:  That promotion boards have discriminated against him by not selecting him for promotion because of his weight.  He goes on to state that although he has always met the Army weight standards through the tape test, the promotion boards could not accept the fact that he exceeded the screening weight tables as much as he did and was still within Army standards.  He further states that the promotion boards did not believe his chain of command had properly indicated his compliance with the weight control standards. Consequently, they requested reconfirmation of his height, weight, and body fat percentage.  He continues by stating that he has done all of the right things to get promoted but because he is being discriminated against because of his weight, he has not been able to overcome the stigma of being passed over for promotion.  Therefore, it is only appropriate that he be given a fair opportunity for promotion selection by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB).

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

He enlisted on 30 September 1981 for a period of 3 years and has remained continuously on active duty through a series of reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 August 1986.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  It opined, in effect, that the applicant had been considered and nonselected for promotion by promotion boards convened in 1993, 1994, and 1995.  Although the reasons for the applicant’s nonselection could not be determined, the PERSCOM explained that selection boards sometimes make inquiries to resolve discrepancies when it appears that there are possibly some inconsistencies in an evaluation report or record.  The PERSCOM also opined that the applicant had presented no evidence or information to warrant promotion reconsideration and therefore 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 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.  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.

2.  While the applicant may believe that the actions of the promotion board are discriminatory in nature, this Board is not convinced that such is the case.  The very fact that the promotion boards are making inquiries to resolve what appear to be discrepancies in soldiers, records is indicative that promotion boards are paying close attention and giving the records the consideration necessary to ensure a fair and equitable selection process.

3.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant has not been selected for promotion, his contention that promotion board discrimination based on his weight is the basis for his nonselection is speculative at best and is not supported by any evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director