APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be promoted to pay grade E-5 and E-6 and reinstated on active duty in the Regular Army. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was much more qualified than his peers but was not promoted, resulting in his mandatory separation at his retention control point (RCP). His failure to be promoted was due to his perfectionist attitude not being accepted for its worth. That resulted in his repeatedly being reassigned from ward to ward. When he complained about his treatment and his failure to be recommended for promotion, he was considered a troublemaker, further complicating his situation and resulting in his being referred for a psychiatric evaluation. When he discovered that he was scheduled to be involuntarily separated due to his reaching his RCP he solicited the help of the Sergeant Major of the Army, resulting in his enlistment being extended and his being recommended for promotion. However, by that time the Army was in the process of being drawn down and, even though he had the highest number of promotion points in his command, he could not be promoted which resulted in his separation. The applicant concludes that he had tried to further extend his enlistment beyond his RCP to no avail, being denied an audience with the commanding general of his command despite numerous requests for an audience and going on a 8-day hunger strike. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 November 1984, was awarded the military occupational specialty of practical nurse, and was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 on 20 August 1990 and transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). He was found to be fit for duty and reenlisted in the Regular Army on 24 September 1992. He was promoted to pay grade E-4. While on active duty he was counseled in writing for omitting a scheduled medication for a patient, for poor interaction with his superiors, peers and subordinates, for lack of professional tact, for being late to work, for failing to go to the place prescribed, and for a lack of knowledge of his duties. On 20 January 1995 the applicant’s commander recommended him for promotion, praising his ability, intelligence, military bearing, appearance, leadership abilities, and physical fitness. On 23 January 1995 the applicant’s former wardmaster submitted a memorandum for the applicant’s first sergeant in which it was stated that the applicant’s performance of duty as a soldier was below average, that he thought of himself as a perfect human being, that he argued a lot with others, and that neither his peers nor other hospital staff members had any confidence in him. The wardmaster stated that she would not recommend him for promotion or for retention in the Army. On 2 March 1995 he was given a laudatory counseling from his supervisor, and on 5 July 1995 his new wardmaster wrote a recommendation to allow the applicant to extend his enlistment, that statement also being very laudatory. On 14 September 1995 the applicant’s duty status was changed from present for duty to AWOL, and was changed back to present for duty on 18 September 1995. On 24 October 1995 the applicant was honorably discharged due to reduction in authorized strength under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8. He had a total of 8 years, 9 months and 27 days of active duty. Army Regulation 601-280, paragraph 2-22, specifies that individuals in pay grade E-4 cannot have more than 8 years of total active service at their ETS, as established by a reenlistment. Paragraph 2-34 specifies that reenlistments must be in periods of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 years. Army Regulation 600-200 outlines the policies and procedures for the promotion of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7, in pertinent part, specifies that promotion to pay grade E-5 may be accomplished by the first commander in the chain of command in the authorized position of an O-5, normally a battalion commander. Prior to promotion, the individual concerned must be recommended for promotion by his unit commander. The individual then must meet all other administrative requirements for promotion, such as sufficient time in the service and time in the prior pay grade, civilian and military educational requirements, and qualification in their military occupational specialty. The promotion authority may waive up to two disqualifications and must certify the promotion packet prior to the individual appearing before a promotion board. If the individual successfully appears before the local promotion board, the soldier is then ranked among his peers by a promotion cut-off score; the soldier is then promoted when the Department of the Army announces a monthly promotion cutoff score at or below his or her cutoff score. However, the soldiers must keep themselves qualified for promotion. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The applicant did not have any inherent right to be considered for promotion. He had to be recommended for promotion by his commander. 2. It appears that although the applicant was knowledgeable in his field, his attitude prevented him from being an effective teamplayer, an absolute necessity for both a soldier and a nurse. In view of his ineffectiveness, it is not surprising that he was not recommended for promotion. 3. It appears that the applicant was able to control his attitude in the last year of his enlistment and finally became an effective soldier and nurse. However, as the applicant himself pointed out, the Army was in a drawdown mode at that time. Therefore, it was too little too late. 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