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 applicants 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711786
On 18 July 1995, his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension shows his date of entry on current enlistment was 8 November 1989 for a 6 year period.) In an opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notes that, based on the absence of the NCO-ER for ending period October 1991, the applicant’s records will be made available for consideration by the May 1998 Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under the 1993 criteria. The applicant was not granted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508824C070209
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. 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. Army Regulation 600-200 serves as the authority for selection and promotion to pay grades E-7 through E-9.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005924C070206
He based his request on the fact that two of the NCOs selected in his MOS were selected even through they were not graduates of the USASMA, and because he believed two of the promotion board members were biased against his selection. This RC promotion official states that promotion selection boards are governed by Army regulatory policy, and members are selected for their maturity, judgment and freedom from bias. While the applicant clearly believes he is better qualified than the Soldiers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509193C070209
He further states that his assignment manager informed him that his record was not reviewed by the last LTC promotion selection board; therefore, he should receive promotion reconsideration. It opined that the applicants records were reviewed by the 1993 and 1994 USAR LTC Promotion Selection Boards and that his AER was present in his records when reviewed by those boards. It states, in pertinent part, that Department of the Army Standby Advisory Boards (STAB) are formed to prevent any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212
The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088659C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In a four page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), in effect, that the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) does not have the authority to void his JAGC appointment. In Part IVa, the applicant received 4 ratings of "1", 7 ratings of "2" and 3 ratings of "3". Paragraph 4-27 of Army Regulation 623-105 requires that certain types of Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgement and comment before they...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087745C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 September 2002, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM advised the applicant that after careful review of his record, his request for a STAB was not favorably considered. Soldiers must request reconsideration if they believe their records contained a material error when it was considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071298C070402
Military Personnel Message Number 99-182, Subject: Zones of Consideration for CSM Appointment, Promotion to SGM, Selection for USASMC and QMP (Qualitative Management Program), announced in June 1999 that the CY 99 CSM/SGM/USASMC board would convene in October 1999. On 1 September 1999, the applicant signed a declination statement and his records were therefore not considered by the FY 99 board. The applicant’s OMPF that would have been reviewed by the CY 99 board and the OMPF that was seen...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057524C070420
The Inquiry Officer (IO) recommended a memorandum be prepared and sent to the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) requesting that the OER be returned to the rater for correction of Part Vd, promotion potential. He did so, but the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) returned the appeal without action. To present the whole truth, the comment should have been expanded to explain what he stole and why (“he took the company’s guidon to present to the former commander”).