MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 30 April 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001061444

         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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member
Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy		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: That he be reinstated to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his chain of command did not treat him fairly. His team NCOIC (noncommissioned officer in charge) told him that his ANCOC (Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course) class date was going to be postponed. Sergeant Major (SGM) R. was the team NCOIC. However, SGM R. did not make any phone calls nor did he attempt to postpone his ANCOC class date. In support of his request he submits letters of recommendation, current body fat work sheets and copies of Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) scorecards.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 1983 for training as a field artilleryman. He has served continuously and is currently a staff sergeant (SSG) on active duty, stationed at Fort Hood, Texas.

His noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER), from 1986 through 2000, except for the NCOER for the period October 1998 through September 1999, reflect that he passed the APFT and met the height and weight standards.

His NCOER for the period October 1998 through September 1999 reflects that he passed the APFT, but did not meet the height and weight standards.

On 20 August 1998, promotion orders were issued promoting the applicant from SSG to SFC. Included on the orders was the following statement “SSG promoted to SFC who do not have ANCOC credit are promoted conditionally. Those soldiers who receive a conditional promotion will have their promotions revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to meet the ANCOC requirement.”

On 10 March 1999, the applicant failed the run portion of the APFT. He scored 58 of a needed 60 points to pass. His age was listed as 33, his height as 70.50 inches and his weight as 244 pounds. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 his maximum allowable weight was 194 pounds.

On 12 May 1999, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified the applicant that based on his cancellation from ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of Army Regulation 600-9 his name had been administratively removed from the promotion list.




On 12 December 2000, the applicant appealed his removal to PERSCOM, NCO Education System (NCOES) Reinstatement Panel. The applicant outlined that due to his work hours and distance of commute to his home his normal day began at 0230 hours and he returned home around 1700 hours. This schedule, along with his family responsibilities, did not leave him time for physical fitness training. In February 1999, he was notified that he had been scheduled to attend ANCOC on 22 April 1999. He immediately requested time to exercise but was denied. That March he failed a diagnostic APFT and the weight standards. He still was not given time to exercise, due to the unit being under-strength. He then went to see SGM R. and requested that his school date be postponed until July 1999. SGM R. agreed and said that he was going to make the phone calls to have the ANCOC date postponed to 24 July 1999. In April, he again failed the weight standard and was still not given time to exercise. In May 1999, he was informed that based on his cancellation from ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of AR 600-9, his name had been administratively removed from the promotion selection list. He reminded SGM R. that he had told him that he would get the ANCOC date postponed. The SGM informed him that it fell through so go and find some staff sergeant stripes. He was totally devastated because the SGM had given him his word.

As part of his appeal, he provided four letters of support signed by a captain, two colonels and one brigadier general. They attest that physical fitness time was not available for the applicant due to his work schedule, that the applicant had struggled with his weight, but takes full responsibility for his problems and blames no one but himself for exceeding body fat standards. Evidence was found however, supporting the applicant’s claim that there was some inconsistency with the unit’s overweight program. The applicant has diligently reduced his weight and now meets the Army’s weight standards.

On 12 April 2001, the Forces Command Inspector General’s Office prepared a report in response to an inquiry submitted by the applicant. It stated that an inquiry determined the issue, that the applicant’s unit leadership failed to provide him time during the duty day for physical training which resulted in, 1) his inability to meet the height weight standards, 2) his enrollment in the Army weight control program, 3) his inability to attend ANCOC, 4) his subsequent revocation of his probationary promotion to SFC, was unfounded and the case was closed. The investigator noted that the applicant initially stated he was prohibited from taking physical training but on recall stated he did take physical training on occasions. Others in the unit agreed that it was difficult to do physical training, but it was an individual responsibility and a few of the applicant’s peers offered their personal belief that the applicant was lazy, was often absent from group physical training when it was available, that he was allowed to arrive at work late to do physical training, but blamed others for his failure to maintain his weight and physical fitness.
The investigator was unable to confirm the applicant’s allegation that he was told his ANCOC date would be delayed. It was determined that no official request was made for a delay. The inquiry indicated that the mission did preclude a regular physical fitness program; however, testimony clearly indicated that adequate time was available to soldiers who displayed a reasonable level of self-motivation and responsibility. The inquiry referred to Army Regulation 350-41, section 9-7 that reflects specific leader responsibilities with respect to physical training. The regulation states that individually scheduled personal fitness programs should be emphasized and time during the duty day authorized. It further states that soldiers must maintain a minimum level of overall physical fitness despite job position.

On 20 June 2001, PERSCOM notified the applicant that his request for reinstatement to SFC did not warrant reinstatement or reversal of the decision regarding him.

Army Regulation 600-9, provides in pertinent part, that the primary objective of the Army Weight Control Program is to insure that all personnel are able to meet the physical demands of their duties under combat conditions present a trim military appearance at all times, and that each soldier is responsible for meeting the standards prescribed in the regulation

Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides, in pertinent path, that effective 1 October 1993, the Army linked NCOES to promotion to SFC. Linking the NCOES to promotion ensures NCOs possess the appropriate skills and knowledge required prior to assuming the duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade. The soldier must be an ANCOC graduate for promotion to SFC. Conditional promoted soldiers selected for promotion to SFC, but have not met the NCOES requirement, will be promoted conditionally. Those soldiers who fail to successfully complete or do not attend their scheduled NCOES will have their conditional promotions revoked and will be removed from the list. Provided otherwise eligible, those soldiers will recompete for promotion.

Army Regulation 614-200, provides in pertinent part, that soldiers must meet the prerequisites contained in DA Pamphlet 351-4 to attend a service school, to include ANCOC. DA Pamphlet 351-4 is the U.S. Army formal schools catalog.

Army Regulation 350-41 prescribes Department of the Army’s (DA) policy for training in units. Chapter 9 prescribes policies and procedures for the Army Physical Fitness Program. Paragraph 9-8 states in pertinent part that the APFT consists of push-ups, sit-ups, and a 2-mile run, done in that order on the same day.



Army Regulation 351-1 provides in pertinent part, that ANCOC training prepares Department of the Army selected SSG and SFC for leadership positions at platoon sergeant level. The course provides a common leadership core of instruction and MOS specific skill training. Training at the ANCOC level emphasizes the skills that complement the NCOs commissioned officer counterpart. ANCOC and the Officer Basic Course are linked through common doctrine focused on the roles of officers and NCOs on the battlefield at platoon level. ANCOC is conducted in a live-in environment at NCO academies collocated with the proponent service school. Course lengths vary by military occupational specialty.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides, in pertinent part, that effective 1 October 1993, the Army linked Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) to promotion to SSG, SFC, and SGM. Linking the NCOES to promotion ensures NCOs possess the appropriate skills and knowledge required prior to assuming the duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade. The requirement for promotion to SFC is ANCOC. Those soldiers who fail to successfully complete or do not attend their scheduled NCOES will have their conditional promotions revoked and will be removed from the list. Provided otherwise eligible, those soldiers will compete again for promotion. Soldiers who have been previously removed the recommended list under this provision are not entitled to receive future conditional promotions.

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. There is no evidence, other than the applicant’s own statement, that a SGM advised him, in effect, that because he needed more time to get in shape, his ANCOC class date would be postponed or that his chain of command treated him unfairly. The Board acknowledges that the applicant and his peers were performing very challenging duties and that it was difficult to have regularly scheduled physical fitness training sessions. The Army’s guidance in this matter is clear; each soldier is personally responsible for maintaining the Army’s minimum physical fitness and weight standards, at all times. Those writing the letters of support spoke well of him, but did not specifically address his accusations. In addition, there were statements from the applicant’s peers and supervisors that countered the statements of his supporters. The applicant, as an aspiring senior NCO should have been well aware that it was and is personal responsibility to maintain a minimum level of physical fitness at all times. There is no entitlement for a period of time to “get in shape” for an APFT or attend ANCOC. Maintaining his physical fitness and weight was made even more crucial due to the conditional promotion to SFC. The applicant was forewarned in the orders promoting him that failure to attend ANCOC would result in the revocation of his promotion and the removal of his name from the centralized list. The applicant may have believed that a request for deferment had been forwarded to PERSCOM for approval. However, the request itself did not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of being prepared to attend ANCOC as scheduled, since any request may be denied. The Board concludes, from the information and evidence available, that the applicant failed to attend his scheduled ANCOC, which dictated his removal from the SFC selection list.

2. 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

__aao___ ____hof__ ___teo___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061444
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020430
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
2.	131.10
3.
4.
5.
6.