| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he was reinstated to pay grade E-7 and was rescheduled into another Advance Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).
APPLICANT STATES: That he has passed all prerequisites to attend school; that an erroneous flag was put in his records; and that an inspector general result shows inconsistency.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
A DA Form 1059 (Academic Report) for the period 4 September to 16 November 1992 indicated he failed his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).
DA Forms 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) for the period December 1994 to June 1995, show he failed to meet weight restrictions for 72 inches, at 209 pounds. Reports for the period February 1996 through January 2000 show weights ranging from 210 to 218 pounds with heights of 72 and 73 inches; however, there are no body fat test results available.
On 1 October 1999, he was conditionally promoted to sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7. The condition of his promotion was attendance at the ANCOC. If he failed to meet this condition, his promotion orders would be revoked and his name removed from the centralized list.
On 15 March 2000, a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Score Card) indicates he exceeded the weight standards (229 pounds) and the body fat standards (24.52).
On 15 March 2000, his commander flagged him for exceeding the Army Weight Control Program standards.
On 27 March 2000, his group commander requested he be deleted from attending the ANCOC based on his failure to successfully complete the APFT and for exceeding the maximum allowable body fat percentage in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 (Weight Control).
On 23 May 2000, PERSCOM Order Number 144-9, revoked the applicants promotion to pay grade E-7 and granted him defacto status for the period 1 October 1999 to 15 March 2000.
On 24 May 2000, PERSCOM Memorandum, Subject: Administrative Removal from the Promotion Selection List, removed the applicant from the promotion list based on his failure to attend the scheduled ANCOC.
On 30 May 2000, an unsigned redacted copy of a Report of Inquiry regarding case FK000072 indicated, in pertinent part, under recommendations, that [redacted] and [redacted] reconsider the decision not to allow applicant to attend NCO Advance Course, take appropriate action to retain in grade and send to next available NCO Advance Course. Added to this recommendation was this unsigned and undated statement: “Non-Concur [1]. I have reconsidered but determined [applicant] had ample opportunity to help himself with his weight/body fat and did not made any progress to remove himself from “marginal” compliance or non-compliance.”
On 31 August 2000, he was notified that he was being barred from reenlistment based on the removal from the promotion selection list on 24 May 2000 and his failure to pass the APFT shown on DA Form 1059, dated 16 November 1992.
On 29 September 2000, the applicant submitted a reclama for non-attendance at ANCOC through his chain of command. The junior members in his chain recommended approval; however, the senior member strongly non-concurred with his request based on his repeatedly failing to achieve Army standards with regards to the APFT and compliance with height/weight standards.
On 9 January 2001, the Chief, Training Analysis Management Branch, PERSCOM advised the applicant’s unit that the Headquarters, Department of the Army NCOES Reinstatement Panel disapproved his request.
Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP. This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards. It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram. Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards. The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.
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. The applicant is neither entitled to reinstatement to SFC nor rescheduling into an ANCOC. He has provided nothing to support that his administrative reduction or his removal from the promotion list was either error or injustice.
2. 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 this requirement.
3. 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
_mkp____ _kak___ _rtd____
DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061746 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011008 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053139C070420
The Inspector General inquiry determined: “No evidence existed that [applicant’s name omitted] actually filed an Article 138 complaint against his Company Commander. The applicant was advised by military counsel to appeal the bar to reenlistment and to file an Article 138 complaint and he did not do either. Evidence of record shows that he chose to not appeal the QMP decision and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance based on the argument that he met Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078826C070215
The height and weight entries while indicating that she exceeded the screening weight for her height, confirm that she met the Army’s weight standard by body fat measurement with “Yes” entries in both reports. The APFT entry was “Profile 9610”, which indicated that she was unable to take the APFT to a physical profile limitation; and the Height/Weight entry was “69/197 Yes”, which indicated that although she exceeded the screening table weight for her height, she did meet Army weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074383C070403
The DA Forms 5501 reflect her record of body fat measurements as: weight 190 lbs. She informed them that it had been determined that the unit’s scale was measuring weight 8 lbs. Meeting the Army's weight and body fat standards is an individual responsibility and on this point alone the applicant's request can be denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078668C070215
A fifth measurement was taken by the unit weight control NCO on 28 February 2001, which had resulted in a determination that the applicant met the body fat standard. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was denied attendance at the ANCOC based on his being under a FLAG action, as a result of his being in an overweight status on 4 January 2001, the scheduled date of his ANCOC class. Also, on 28 February 2001, when the unit weight control NCO determined he met the weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066589C070402
The applicant was again rescheduled to attend in May 2001, but could not attend due to failure of a record APFT on 24 April 2001. Army Regulation 614-200, provides in pertinent part, that soldiers must meet the prerequisites contained in Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-4 to attend a service school, to include ANCOC. The applicant should have obtained a temporary profile prior to the 24 April 2001 APFT, which would have again delayed his attendance at ANCOC or obtained a permanent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012408
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The sergeant major informed the applicant that he would not be allowed to attend ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of AR 600-9 and would subsequently be demoted to the grade of E-6 based upon his conditional promotion. The applicant did not provide evidence to show, and his records do not indicate that his medical condition required processing through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088494C070403
He stated that after reviewing the applicant's December 2000 body fat content worksheet and his height and weight data dating back to February 1999, evaluation reports, and related medical documentation, he believed that his weight gain of approximately 18 pounds was directly related to his hernia, the repair surgery, and his physical inability to conduct a rigorous fitness regime from December 2000 through October 2001. Therefore, the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063197C070421
Army Regulation 140-111 establishes the policies and provisions for imposing bars to reenlistment for members of the AGR program under the QMP. Since all three of those reports, however, show that she met the height and weight standards of the regulation, the absence of the required remark is considered an oversight and does not reflect the true nature of her physical fitness. Her NCOERs for the periods in question show that she had a profile and consequently could not take the APFT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061444C070421
He then went to see SGM R. and requested that his school date be postponed until July 1999. 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. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9108000
Also, he now requests, in effect, placement on the permanent disability retired list, removal of the enlisted evaluation report (EER) covering the period September 1977-August 1978 as a partial basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment, and the award of the Good Conduct Medal (6th Award). On 3 April 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals, indicated that the applicant had active service from May 1970 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to March 1986; that the applicant had a transitory psychotic...