+MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 15 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002074383

         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. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 her rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), be reinstated and that she be allowed to re-attend the advanced noncommissioned officer course (ANCOC).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was administered and passed five Army physical fitness tests and weigh-ins between 16 August and 19 December 2001, to prepare her for attendance at the ANCOC which was to begin on 7 January 2002 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. She was found to be within the body fat standard on the last tape test at 32.56 %. When she in-processed at ANCOC on 6 January 2002, she failed the body fat standard and was denied enrollment. Upon return to her unit, she was sent to the medical facility to be weighed. On their scales she was nine pounds heavier than on the unit's scale. It was determined that the unit's scale had not been calibrated and was nine pounds lighter. She was also reduced from SFC to staff sergeant. She was assured that since her problems were the result of a unit error, her appeal to re-attend ANCOC would be supported. By 19 February 2002, she was within standards and began working with her chain of command to return to ANCOC. Her appeal for re-enrollment, however, was denied. She sought assistance from her chain of command, the Inspector General and the Staff Judge Advocate, but was informed to appeal to this Board.

In support of her appeal, she submits several DA Forms 5501 (Body Fat Content Worksheet).

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 April 1989. She was conditionally promoted to sergeant first class on 1 March 1999 in military occupational specialty 75H (Personnel Services Specialist) and is currently on active duty.

The DA Forms 5501 reflect her record of body fat measurements as: weight 190 lbs. and 33.86% body fat on 16 August 2001; weight 187 lbs. and 32.01% body fat on 25 October 2001; weight 185 lbs. and 30.38% body fat on 20 November 2001; weight 188 lbs. and 32.56% body fat on 19 December 2001 (this was the last measurement taken by her unit prior to her reporting to ANCOC). Her age during this period was 36 and 37. Her authorized body fat measurement is 34%.

Her weight taken at ANCOC on 6 January 2002 was 193 lbs. with a body fat measurement of 37.34%.






Upon returning to her unit on 9 January 2002, her weight was 187 lbs. with a body fat measurement of 32.46%. A handwritten note on the form, signed by the first sergeant, indicates that the scale was found to be incorrect.

A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) was prepared for the applicant. The form is unsigned but indicates she was counseled by the first sergeant on 9 January 2002 when she returned from ANCOC to confirm that she was not in compliance with Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). It was found, however, that the company scale was in error which was the reason she was not in compliance and she would be allowed 30 days to meet the weight and body fat standard.

The applicant submitted a request for reinstatement to ANCOC to US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). She informed them that it had been determined that the unit’s scale was measuring weight 8 lbs. lighter than actual weight. She admits that the scales at the ANCOC were correct, however all of the previous measurements that had been done at the unit were erroneous, and had given her a false sense of security. She reported to ANCOC with the belief that she was within the body fat standard. Her parent unit had conducted four weigh-ins during a five-month period and each time had determined that she was within the standard. Until the unfortunate incident, neither she nor her command was aware that there was a problem with the scales. Because the unit’s scale improperly measured her weight, she believes that she should be afforded the opportunity to attend a future ANCOC class and retain her conditional promotion to SFC.

The applicant’s company commander supported her request for reinstatement to ANCOC. He confirmed that she had been repeatedly weighed and taped and found on each occasion to be within the Army’s body fat standard. Later investigation revealed that the unit’s scale was not accurately calibrated giving readings less than actual weight.

On 25 March 2002, the PERSCOM notified the applicant that based on her denied enrollment to ANCOC, due to her failure to meet the standards of Army Regulation 600-9, her name had been administratively removed from the promotion selection list.

On 9 April 2002, PERSCOM notified the applicant of their denial of her request for reinstatement to SFC. She was advised that all matters submitted in extenuation and mitigation had been taken into consideration and that the reasons provided did not warrant reinstatement or reversal of the decision.




Army Regulation 351-1 (Individual Military Education and Training) 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 military occupational specialty specific skill training. Training at the ANCOC level emphasizes the skills that complement the NCO's 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 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides, in pertinent part, 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. Soldiers conditionally selected for promotion to SFC, but who 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 they are otherwise eligible, these soldiers will again compete for promotion.

Army Regulation 614-200 (Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management) 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. Department of the Army Pamphlet 351-4 is the U.S. Army's Formal Schools Catalog.

Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) provides, in pertinent part, that each soldier is responsible for meeting the standards prescribed in this regulation; that personnel exceeding the screening table weight or identified by the commander or supervisor for a special evaluation will have a determination made of percent body fat. The table indicates that for the applicant, who is a female 68 inches tall and between the ages of 28 through 39, the screening weight is 159 lbs.

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 Army’s guidance in this matter is clear; failure to attend ANCOC will result in a soldier's removal from the centralized promotion list. The importance of NCOs meeting the standard to attend and complete the ANCOC has been given extensive coverage so much so that PERSCOM has been consistent in its denial of requests for reinstatement to ANCOC based on administrative mistakes by NCOs or their unit. The applicant has not shown that denial of her request for re-enrollment in ANCOC by the PERSCOM was not consistent with their denial of other NCOs in a similar situation.

2. 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. The applicant had a history of exceeding the screening table weight and nearly exceeding her allowable body fat percentage. As a senior NCO, it was critical to her career that she meet those standards and attend her scheduled ANCOC. It is reasonable to expect that she weighed herself independently and knew her actual weight prior to an official weigh-in. Lastly, the company commander did not explain if the weight scale in question was used for the company's semi- annual weigh-in or physical fitness tests and how no other soldier failed to notice the inaccuracy of the scale. These unanswered questions and the appearance that the applicant has not done all she could to meet the standards of the weight control program have contributed to the Board's decision to deny her request.

3. 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.

4. 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

____inw _ ___jns __ ____jam _ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074383
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020815
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.	131.02
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.