APPLICANT REQUESTS: Promotion to the pay grade of E-9. APPLICANT STATES: That he has been erroneously and unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-9. He further states that his initial nonselections for promotion were based on the presence of erroneous documents in his official records that were subsequently removed through administrative appeals. He goes on to state that his subsequent nonselections were based on his previous nonselections, which is unjust because his last three assignments have been as the enlisted aide to four star generals. The generals have indicated that his performance has been outstanding, that he has great potential, and that he should be promoted ahead of his peers. He also states that he has completed two college degrees (Associate and Bachelors), and that he has always exceeded the standards for the ranks he has held. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant entered the Enlisted Aide program in January 1986 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 17 September 1987. On 9 June 1989 the applicant was notified in writing that he was being considered for involuntary disenrollment from the Sergeants Major Academy Corresponding Studies Program and that he was entitled to submit matters in his own behalf if he desired to appeal the disenrollment. The applicant elected to appeal his disenrollment and submitted a letter in his own behalf in which he explained that he had gotten behind in his studies because he was attending college, his wife was expecting their first child, and he was experiencing a lot of stress in his job. On 29 August 1989 the applicant was involuntarily disenrolled from the nonresident Sergeants Major Academy class of July 1990 (class 15). The academic evaluation report (AER) indicates that the applicant failed to achieve a passing score on the primary and two alternate examinations for phase I, military studies, and was rated as having failed to achieve course standards. On 6 April 1992 the Calendar Year 1992 Sergeant Major Promotion Selection Board determined that a bar to reenlistment should be imposed against the applicant under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) based on his AER (DA Form 1059) indicating his failure to complete the Sergeants Major Academy. The applicant appealed the bar to reenlistment with the support of his chain of command, which included several general officers. His appeal was approved on 5 November 1992. A review of the applicant’s records show that the applicant has received awards of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Joint Chief of Staff Identification Badge. In addition, he attained an Associate degree in 1985 and a Bachelors degree in 1991. After serving 20 years, 8 months, and 9 days of total active service, the applicant reenlisted on 14 September 1993 for a period of 4 years. He subsequently applied for an extension of service of 3 months past his scheduled expiration of term of service which was approved by the Department on 11 September 1995. The applicant submitted an appeal on 20 April 1994 to the Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (ESRB) requesting that the AER be removed from his records. The ESRB denied his appeal on 15 July 1994. Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides policies and procedures for managing the Centralized Promotion System for promotion to the pay grade of E-9. It states, in pertinent part, that selections by Department of the Army boards will be based on impartial consideration of all eligible soldiers in the announced zones by military occupational specialty (MOS). Promotion boards will select the best qualified soldiers in specified MOS's for promotion. The boards will recommend a specified number of soldiers by MOS who are best qualified to meet the needs of the Army. Effective 1 October 1993, graduation from the Sergeants Major Course became a prerequisite for promotion to the rank of Sergeant Major (E-9). DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The applicant’s contentions that he was unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-9 due to the presence of erroneous documents contained in his records and the stigma attached to his being previously nonselected, is without merit. It is a well known fact that promotion selection boards do not reveal their reasons for selection or nonselection. Therefore, the applicant’s contentions are speculative at best and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application of the evidence of record. 2. It is unfortunate that the applicant has not been selected for promotion to pay grade E-9. However, this Board does not wish to act as a super-selection board by second guessing centralized promotion selection boards which were afforded the benefit of comparing the applicant’s record of performance and evaluating his potential for further service against that of his peers. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of error or injustice there is no basis to approve the applicant’s request. 3. 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