RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003090129


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member
Mr. John P. Infante		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


1. The applicant requests that her original date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be restored to 16 June 2000 and that her military occupational specialty (MOS) of 79V30 be restored as her primary MOS (PMOS).

2. The applicant states, in effect, that she attended the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) for MOS 79V on 13 January 2002 and was unjustly released from the course as an academic failure on 23 January 2002. Upon return to her unit she contacted officials at the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) to inquire as to what she could do to return to the BNCOC and was informed that she needed to submit a request for reinstatement within 6 months. She goes on to state that she also submitted an Inspector General (IG) complaint in regards to her dismissal from the BNCOC and during this time she received reclassification orders changing her PMOS from 79V to 54B (Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) Noncommissioned Officer NCO) and designated 79V as her secondary MOS (SMOS). She continues by stating that she submitted her request for reinstatement in March 2002 and while awaiting a decision, was again selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 in MOS 54B. She attended 54B BNCOC in August 2002 and completed that course with a 92% completion rate. She further states that she contacted officials at the ARPERSCOM to determine the status of her request for reinstatement and was informed that because she had already been promoted again in MOS 54B and was not going to be reinstated to MOS 79V, her packet was destroyed without any action being taken. She also states that not only should she have received an outcome of her request, she should also have had her original DOR restored. However, in her experience, personnel at the ARPERSCOM are treated more partially than those in the field because she knows of several instances where personnel stationed at the ARPERSCOM had failed military training courses and were not reduced as she was. Accordingly, she believes she should have her original DOR restored to 16 June 2000.

3. The applicant provides what she terms her reinstatement packet, her academic evaluation reports (AERs), her promotion and MOS orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant originally enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 January 1985 and served as a subsistence supply specialist through a series of continuous reenlistments, until she was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-4 on 28 January 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, and the Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program with the Special Separation Benefit (SSB). She had served 8 years of total active service and received $17,513.00 in SSB payments. She was also given a Reentry (RE) Code of 3S.

2. The applicant applied for and received a waiver of her RE Code and enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in the pay grade of E-3 on 9 June 1998. She was assigned to a USAR Troop Program Unit in St. Louis, Missouri.

3. She was advanced to the pay grade of E-5 on 21 March 1999 and on 16 June 2000, she was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 in MOS 54B. A condition of her accepting the promotion was she was to complete the NCO Education System (NCOES) course required for her grade (BNCOC) and that she understood and agreed that failure to meet those conditions, or subsequently denied enrollment, or failure to meet graduation requirements, or determinations as a "No-Show" would subject her to reduction to the grade and rank held prior to the promotion.

4. On 4 November 2000, she was reassigned to the ARPERSCOM to enter active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program. She attended and completed the Retention and Transition NCO Course at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, on 15 December 2000 and was awarded the MOS of 79V. She was reassigned to a Reserve Support Command in Georgia for duty as an AGR Retention Transition NCO.

5. On 13 January 2002, the applicant reported to the 79V BNCOC at Fort McCoy and on 23 January 2002, just 2 days prior to completion of the course, she was released from the course for failure to achieve course standards (academic reasons: failed a written examination and retest). She was given a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) and the report was referred to her in accordance with the applicable regulations. The applicant elected not to appeal the report and was returned to her unit.

6. On or about 26 February 2002, the applicant contacted IG officials requesting an investigation into her dismissal from the BNCOC. She filed a formal written request on 25 March 2002 contending that her initial request had not been complied with and requesting that another IG office handle her request for an investigation into the conduct of the BNCOC at Fort McCoy. While the applicant provided a copy of her initial request, she did not provide any information regarding to the final resolution of her request.

7. On 5 March 2002, orders were published by the ARPERSCOM which reduced the applicant to the pay grade of E-5 with a DOR of 1 April 1999, based on her failure of the BNCOC. On 6 March 2002, orders were published reclassifying the applicant's PMOS to 54B and her SMOS to 79V.

8. On 20 August 2002, the applicant attended the BNCOC for MOS 54B at Fort Gordon, Georgia. She completed the course with a 92% Grade Point Average on 5 September 2002 and was returned to her unit. She was again promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 2002.

9. A review of the reinstatement packet provided by the applicant reveals that it was improperly prepared as a memorandum for record and was not addressed to the NCOES Reinstatement Panel at the ARPERSCOM. It also does not contain any recommendations from her chain of command and indicates that her cases was currently under investigation by the IG.

10. Army Regulation 140-158, Army Reserve Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction, authorizes promotions conditioned on completion of required NCOES courses. It provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier who has been promoted on the condition that he or she will complete the specified NCOES course for their grade and who fail to complete the course or are removed for cause or academic failure, will be removed from the promotion list and if conditionally promoted, will be reduced to the pay grade held prior to promotion with the original DOR held in the lower grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

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. In order for the applicant to show that she should be restored to her original DOR and to have 79V restored as her PMOS, the applicant would have to show through the evidence submitted with her application as well as the evidence of record that she did not fail the academic requirements of the course, that she was unjustly removed from the course and that she was improperly reduced to her former grade and DOR. The evidence does not support her contentions that such was the case.

3. The evidence submitted by the applicant indicates that the applicant has alleged misconduct on the part of the BNCOC staff and school officials; however, she has provided no evidence to substantiate her allegations and she has not provided any evidence by investigative officials (IG) to substantiate her allegations.

4. The applicant also alleges that she was treated unfairly by being reduced in grade when others have not and that her request for reinstatement was not properly acted on. However, the evidence provided by the applicant is insufficient at best to determine what occurred in cases involving other soldiers who she contends failed to complete the required NCOES courses.

5. In regards to her reinstatement request, her request was not properly prepared and routed through her chain of command and on the surface looks simply like a memorandum of record that would serve only to document the events that occurred. While it would have been more appropriate to return the documents to the applicant to be submitted in the proper format, without a readily visible explanation of the purpose of her submission, a cursory review would indicate that no action was necessary; especially since she indicates that her case was under investigation by the IG. Accordingly, the Board finds no merit to her contention that she was unjustly denied due process.

6. The available evidence in this case indicates that she was properly released from the BNCOC for academic reasons and was properly reduced to her former grade and DOR in accordance with applicable regulations.

7. Although the specifics involved are not present in the available records, the evidence shows that applicant was subsequently reclassified to another PMOS and was allowed to not only compete for promotion but to also attend the BNCOC in that MOS, which she successfully completed and was subsequently promoted.

8. Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the actions taken in this case were accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant's rights.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

fne ___ __ kah ____ jpi _____ DENY APPLICATION


The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ___Fred N. Eichorn___
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090129
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040205
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 1.315	131.0500/DOR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.