MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


                  IN THE CASE OF:
        


                  BOARD DATE: 30 October 2003
                  DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003089865

         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
Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Chairperson
Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member
Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		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: In effect, that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7.

APPLICANT STATES: That, in 1970, he went before an SFC promotion board which he passed with flying colors. However, due to circumstances beyond his control, he was not promoted. His records had not been forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) to be promoted to the next higher grade. After he complained to the Inspector General (IG), he went before another promotion board. He did not pass that board, for what reason he does not know.

As supporting evidence, the applicant provides a letter from Headquarters, VII Corps Support Command, Office of the IG to him dated 6 April 1970; a letter from
HQDA, Office of Personnel Operations to him dated 25 November 1970; and his DD Form 214 for the period ending 2 January 1973.

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 15 March 1954. He was promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 15 August 1966 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 56E (Cargo Handler) (later converted to MOS 57H). He was assigned to the 535th Ordnance Company, Germany on or about 4 July 1968 and performed duties as a 55B ammunition storage specialist and 55B section chief. He was awarded secondary MOS 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic) on 18 March 1969. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he never performed duties as a 63C.

According to the IG letter dated 6 April 1970, the applicant appeared before an E-7 promotion board on 27 June 1969 and was recommended for promotion in MOS 64B (Heavy Vehicle Driver). His appearance before that board in MOS 64B was, however, in error as actual or projected vacancies in MOS 64B were not announced for June and July. He was not placed on the standing promotion list for that reason. A delay was experienced in notifying him of that fact. His paperwork had been misfiled and his unit was not notified of that fact until 17 September 1969. He was counseled to this effect by his unit commander on 26 September 1969.

The IG further stated that the applicant appeared before the E-7 promotion board on 29 August 1969 in his secondary MOS of 63C. He was not recommended for promotion by that promotion board. His unit was notified as to the results of that board by disposition form dated 17 September 1969 and he was counseled to that effect by his unit commander on 26 September 1969. The IG went on to state that MOS 57H was not authorized within VII Corps Support Command but he could request reassignment to another unit which had that MOS authorized. It was pointed out to him that he could be used within that command in his secondary MOS.

The Office of Personnel Operations letter dated 25 November 1970 informed the applicant that his promotion recommendation packet was not received in sufficient time to allow consideration of his records by the regularly constituted Centralized Enlisted Selection Board which adjourned on 22 September 1970. His records were referred to the Army Standby Enlisted Advisory Board for promotion consideration but he was not recommended for promotion. He would automatically be afforded consideration by the next two HQDA boards regardless of the zone eligibility criteria specified for those boards.

The applicant apparently was not selected for promotion to SFC by subsequent HQDA centralized promotion boards.

The applicant was retired by reason of physical disability on 3 January 1973 in pay grade E-6.

Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies pertaining to career management of Army enlisted personnel, to include enlisted promotions and reductions. Prior to the time the centralized promotion system went into effect for promotion to E-7 on 1 June 1970, individuals could have been recommended for promotion by the unit commander in any awarded MOS or in an MOS in which the soldier was fully qualified for the award of. If the soldier was recommended for promotion in an MOS not his primary MOS, the MOS would be awarded as his primary MOS upon promotion. The soldier could be recommended for promotion by the unit commander only against authorized position vacancies existing or projected for a 2-month period within the command as announced by the promoting authority. The soldier who was next in line on the order-of-merit-recommended-list to fill the vacancy and for whom a promotion quota was received would be promoted by the losing commander.

A centralized promotion system went into effect for E-7s on 1 June 1970. The first centralized promotion board for E-7s convened on 25 August 1970. If a soldier was not selected by that board, he was automatically afforded consideration by the next two boards regardless of eligibility criteria specified for those boards. Centralized promotion boards (for promotion consideration to grades E-7, E-8 and E-9) will select the best qualified soldier in each MOS for promotion. They will recommend a specified number of soldiers by MOS from zones of consideration who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army. The total number selected in each MOS is the projected number the Army needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength at any given time.

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. 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.

2. The evidence provided by the applicant shows that he was erroneously recommended for promotion in MOS 64B, even though a promotion board recommended him for such promotion on 27 June 1969, because there were no projected vacancies in that MOS.

3. The evidence provided by the applicant shows that he appeared before a promotion board again, on 29 August 1969, in his secondary MOS of 63C but was not recommended for promotion. It cannot be determined 30 years after the fact why he was not recommended for promotion. It is noted that he was awarded MOS 63C less than 6 months earlier and had never worked in that MOS. Presumably the promotion board felt he was not sufficiently qualified to hold MOS 63C as a primary MOS as an E-7.

4. The evidence provided by the applicant shows that his command did not have authorized positions in MOS 57H; therefore, it would not have been possible for him to have been recommended for promotion in that MOS while he was assigned to that command.

5. The evidence provided by the applicant shows that his records had indeed not been forwarded to HQDA in time for the first centralized E-7 promotion board. His records were then properly referred to the Army Standby Enlisted Advisory Board for promotion consideration; however, he was not recommended for promotion.

6. Regarding the applicant's subsequent non-selections for promotion to E-7, without being able to review all the records, MOS/authorized-by-grade projections and special instructions that were available to the promotion boards that considered the applicant, it cannot be determined why he was not selected for promotion. The years during which he was considered for promotion were years of drawdown after the Vietnam War. Without evidence to show otherwise, it appears that the soldiers who were recommended for promotion to E-7 were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, more qualified in their MOS than was the applicant.

7. 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

__clg___ __ewl___ __lcb___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089865
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20031030
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1.	131.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.