MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:   
	                  

	BOARD DATE:      25 February 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC95-10648A

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:




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

	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:  In effect, reconsideration of his previous request to correct his promotion points worksheet (DA Form 3355) to reflect that he was awarded “200” promotion points by his commander and that he was awarded “46” promotion points for military education.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his new commander unjustly awarded him “0” promotion points after his previous commander at his last duty station had awarded him “200” points.  He goes on to state that he appealed the commander’s decision and the commander changed his evaluation to “175”.  He continues by stating that the commanders actions were biased and racially motivated and that his actions, coupled by the fact that the servicing personnel service company failed to accept all of the documents to substantiate his military education, resulted in his not being promoted in August 1989.  He further states that while he does not have proof of his allegations, the fact that he has continued to pursue the matter should be sufficient to show that something was wrong with the system, if nothing more than the fact that a commander’s uninformed and arbitrary decision could ruin a soldier’s career 

NEW EVIDENCE/INFORMATION:  In support of his applications he submits copies of the documents that he did not receive promotion point credit for at the time when the cut-off score dropped to “747”.

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

On 5 February 1997 the Board denied the applicant’s request (COPY ATTACHED) to essentially promote him to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 August 1989.

At the time the applicant submitted his previous application his records show that he was serving on active duty as a combat engineer in the pay grade of E-5.

At the time the applicant submitted his current request, he had been honorably released from active duty on 31 January 1997 after serving 15 years and 19 days of total active service and placed on the Retired list in the pay grade of E-5 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12 and the Voluntary Early Retirement Program.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Enlisted Promotions Branch.  After reviewing the applicant’s official records as well as the documents submitted by the applicant, the PERSCOM conducted a review and computation of the applicant’s promotion points as they would have been in July and August 1989, had they been properly computed under the applicable guidelines.  The PERSCOM opined that the applicant’s promotion points worksheet contained erroneous points for which he had previously been granted credit and that after computing all of the available documents for which points were authorized, the applicant only had “719” authorized promotion points.  The PERSCOM computed these points based on the commander’s evaluation of “175” points and further opined that the applicant did not meet the promotion cut-off score during the period of July 1989 through July 1990.  The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied.

Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for enlisted promotions.  It states, in pertinent part, that commanders of intransit soldiers may chose to award duty performance points in item 1f of the DA Form 3355 or use the previous commander’s evaluation. 

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.  Not only has the applicant not provided sufficient documentation to support his contention that his recomputation/reevaluation points are incorrect, he has also failed to show how or when he was unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-6.

3.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s records as well as the documents he submits with his application, the PERSCOM Enlisted Promotions Branch (which also serves as the proponent for the DA Form 3355), determined that the applicant would have had only 719 promotion points had his points been properly calculated.  Therefore, even had the applicant received a commander’s evaluation of “200” points instead of the “175” points he received, he still would not have met the August 1989 cut-off score of “747”.  Consequently, the applicant’s contention has no merit. 

4.  Additionally, the applicant’s contention that the actions by the commander to award him less than “200” points were biased and racially motivated are not supported by the evidence of record nor the evidence submitted with his application.  Furthermore, the applicable regulations allow the commander to make the decision based on their assessment of the individual concerned at the time.  Although the applicant may disagree with the commander’s assessment at the time, the commander was properly exercising his authority based on his judgement at the time.

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

 JHL     KW      CMF   DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director