MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074791

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Attendance at the basic noncommissioned officer course (BNCOC) and promotion to the rank of staff sergeant (SSG) with an adjusted date of rank (DOR).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that on 4 September 1996, the United States Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy cited Department of the Army (DA) Message DAMO-TR, 081650Z March 1995 as the authority for denying him enrollment in the BNCOC due to failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  However, he has recently discovered that another DA message with an effective date of 1 February 1996, stated that the requirement of successful completion of the APFT was no longer an enrollment requirement but would be a graduation requirement.  He goes on to state that the policy went into effect 7 months prior to his being denied enrollment into the BNCOC and subsequently caused him to lose his promotable status.  He continues by stating that prior to attending the BNCOC he met the cut-off score for promotion to the rank of SSG on 1 December 1995, but could not be promoted until he completed BNCOC.  Prior to going to BNCOC, he took an AFPT and successfully passed it.  He was denied enrollment and was returned to his unit to appear before a promotion removal board; however, he was again required to take an APFT and passed it again.  He also states that the board recommended that he remain on the list and go to BNCOC at the earliest date; however, a series of events prevented him from returning (injury, profile, therapy, and deployments).  He outlines the series of events in a 10-page narrative and submits in support of his application the cited message, a copy of his promotion packet and other documents supporting his contentions. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 September 1988 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 June 1993.

On 1 December 1995 the applicant met the announced cut-off score for promotion to the rank of SSG in military occupational specialty 91W (Health Care Specialist).

On 4 September 1996, the Commandant of the AMEDD NCO Academy dispatched a memorandum to the applicant’s unit informing the chain of command that in accordance with DA message DAMO-TR, the applicant had been denied enrollment in the BNCOC because he had failed to pass the APFT.  The memorandum further advised the chain of command that the message authority cited also required that he be flagged and removed from the order of merit list (OML).  He was required to be reconsidered for promotion and selected by local OML in order to return to BNCOC.

On 19 November 1996, a promotion removal board was conducted at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to determine if the applicant should be removed from the promotion standing list based on his being denied enrollment to BNCOC due to an APFT failure.  The Board determined that he should remain on the list and attend BNCOC as soon as possible.

For reasons not explained in the available records, the applicant was removed from the promotion standing list and was subsequently transferred to Honduras, where he had to appear before a promotion board in order to re-acquire promotion list standing.  In September 2000 he again failed the APFT while under a temporary profile and was erroneously removed from the promotion list.  He was subsequently reinstated.

On 5 August 2002, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-5 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, due to completion of his required active service.  He had served 14 years, 3 months and 15 days of total active service and received $37,505.43 in separation pay.  He immediately enlisted in the United States Army Reserve.  The applicant had also reached his Retention Control Point (RCP) for his pay grade.

A review of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) shows that he has served as a flight medic for most of his career and has received excellent efficiency ratings.

A review of the message provided by the applicant indicates a poorly legible copy of a draft message attached to an electronic mail (E-mail) message.  The message is dated 18 December 1995 and references DA message 081650 March 95, Subject: APFT/Height and Weight Requirements.  It indicates that effective 1 February 1996, the APFT will no longer be an enrollment requirement but instead a graduation requirement.  It should also be noted that the instructions on the email indicate that it was a working message being dispatched for input.  The staff of the Board has been unable to confirm that the message ever reached implementation stages. 

However, the staff of the Board was able to obtain a copy of DA message 292039 January 1999, which also referenced DAMO-TR message 081650 March 1995.  That message established the requirement to pass the APFT for school enrollment and required those failing the APFT to be denied enrollment.  The January 1999 message changed the requirement effective 1 February 1999, to coincide with new APFT standards and provided, in effect, that soldiers attending professional development courses such as BNCOC would be administered the APFT within 72 hours of arrival of enrollment.  If the soldier failed the initial APFT, he or she would be administered one retest between 7 and 14 days.  If the retest was failed an academic dismissal would occur.

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.  While the applicant has raised many issues and provided explanations of the series of events that occurred from the time he met the promotion cut-off score on 1 December 1995, the core issue in this case is whether or not he was properly denied enrollment in the BNCOC due to his failure of the AFPT in September 1996.

2.  Inasmuch as the Board has been unable to establish that the message he has provided in support of his application was ever implemented, the Board finds, in absence of evidence to the contrary, that he was properly denied enrollment. 

3.  The Board has come to this conclusion due to the fact that the draft message/e-mail he submits as evidence, references the March 1995 message as the base document/requirements that are being proposed for change.  However, the January 1999 message, which is the current policy, also references the March 1995 message as the base document/requirements being changed.  This message was implemented; therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the proposed changes in the draft message were never implemented. 

4.  The Board finds it unfortunate that the applicant encountered so many difficult personal and professional problems while serving on active duty.  However, it was incumbent on him to attend the BNCOC before he could be promoted to the rank of SSG.  The Board is not convinced that the circumstances of his not attending BNCOC were entirely out of his control.  While his record indicates an excellent record of service, he also had a responsibility to personally manage his professional career as well.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to grant his request.

5.  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

_mm____  ___rjw  __  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074791	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.0000/PROMOTION	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.