RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001256


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Marla J. N. Troup             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

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

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that he be given promotion reconsideration to
Master Sergeant (MSG) under the guidance issued to the Calendar Year (CY)
2003 MSG Selection Board.

2.  The applicant states that because of an "erroneously filed" document in
his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), he was denied promotion
consideration to Sergeant First Class (SFC) by the CY 1999 and CY 2000 SFC
Selection Boards.  When he appealed, he was granted Standby Advisory Board
(STAB) consideration under the CY 2000 Board guidance, but was not
selected.  He appealed this and was granted STAB consideration under CY
1999 Board guidance and was selected.  He was given a promotion date to SFC
of 1 November 1999.

3.  The applicant also states that he was not timely scheduled to attend
the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).  This caused him to be
denied promotion by the CY 2003 MSG Selection Board.  He subsequently
completed ANCOC and feels it only fair that he be given reconsideration by
the CY 2003 MSG Selection Board.

4.  The applicant provides:

      a.  A 2-page, self-authored fact sheet.

      b.  A 20 November 2001 request for STAB consideration under criteria
used by the CY 1999 SFC Selection Board.

      c.  A 23 April 2002 memorandum advising his promotion to SFC.

      d.  A copy of his promotion orders to SFC, dated 25 April 2002, with
an effective date of 1 November 1999.

      e.  An Army Training Requirements and Resources System document
showing his completion of ANCOC.

      f.  A copy of his Academic Evaluation Report for ANCOC.

      g.  Copies of his request for MSG promotion reconsideration and
denial of same.

      h.  A copy of a 12 March 2004 memorandum indicating that he had
exhausted administrative remedy in seeking STAB consideration to MSG.

      i.  A copy of the Memorandum of Instruction to the CY 2004 MSG
Selection Board which counsels educational waivers for NCOs who have not
completed ANCOC due to operational commitments.

      j.  A copy of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was denied promotion by the CY 1999 and CY 2000 SFC
Selection Boards.  The applicant states that this was due to document(s)
"erroneously filed" in his OMPF.  On an unknown date (most likely in 2001),
the applicant was successful in correcting his OMPF.

2.  The applicant was selected for promotion to SFC by an Enlisted Standby
Advisory Board that adjourned on 20 February 2002 and given a date of rank
of 1 November 1999.

3.  The applicant attended ANCOC Class 1-03 on 23 January 2003 and
graduated on 20 March 2003.  The CY 2003 MSG Selection Board convened on 4
February 2003.  The applicant was not selected for promotion from the
secondary zone.

4.  The applicant attempted to obtain STAB consideration under the guidance
issued to the CY 2003 MSG Selection Board, but was denied.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Promotions Branch, US Army Human Resources Command (HRC) – Alexandria,
Virginia.  The opinion states that the applicant was ineligible for
promotion consideration by the CY 2003 MSG Selection Board because he had
not completed ANCOC by the time the board convened.

6.  The applicant was provided a copy of the HRC advisory opinion.  On
17 August 2004, he responded.  He pointed out, in effect, that everything
was the Army's fault.  He was not selected for promotion to SFC in 1999 and
2000 because of "erroneously filed" documents in his OMPF; he was initially
only given STAB consideration under guidance issued to the CY 2000 Board
and was denied, thereby losing valuable time; he then had to request
consideration under
guidance issued to the CY 1999 Board and was selected in April 2002; he
then had to wait until January 2003 to start ANCOC and could not complete
it before the CY 2003 MSG Selection Board met.  He states, in effect, that
he should not be punished for errors made by the Army.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military
personnel system.  It is linked to AR 600-8 series and provides principles
of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps
governing all work required in the field to support promotions and
reductions.  It provides the objectives of the Army's Enlisted Promotions
System, which include filling authorized enlisted spaces with the best-
qualified Soldiers.  It also provides for career progression and rank that
is in line with potential, recognizing the best qualified Soldier that will
attract and retain the highest caliber Soldier for a career in the Army.
Additionally, it precludes promoting the Soldier who is not productive or
not best qualified, thus providing an equitable system for all Soldiers.

8.  Army Pamphlet 600-25 (U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officer Professional
Development Guide) provides guidance for the professional development of
noncommissioned officers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Army Pamphlet 600-25 clearly states that individual Soldiers are
ultimately their own career managers (emphasis added) and are encouraged to
participate in the career development process.  It further states:

      An important element of an  enlisted  Soldier's  involvement  in  that
      process  is  to  insure  that  his/her  records   accurately   reflect
      capabilities  and  service.   The  official  military  personnel  file
      (OMPF), the military personnel records  jacket  (MPRJ),  the  enlisted
      record brief (ERB), and the career management individual  file  (CMIF)
      contain the data from which important career development decisions are
      made for selection, advancement, assignment, and retention.   Enlisted
      Soldiers must review, update, and maintain  these  records  throughout
      their careers.  To remain informed and focused on career  goals,  they
      should request periodic advice and counseling from their  NCO  support
      channel, chain of  command,  career  management  field  proponent  and
      career management branch.

2.  The nature of the "erroneously filed" documents in the applicant's OMPF
is not known, e.g., the subject, the kind of "error," when the documents
were filed to the OMPF.  What is known is that the applicant was
responsible for the content of his OMPF and that he failed to properly
discharge that responsibility.  After being denied promotion in 1999 and in
2000, it took him until 2001 to resolve the problem with his OMPF.

3.  The Army acted properly in granting the applicant standby advisory
board promotion reconsideration, in promoting him to SFC with a 1999
promotion date, and in scheduling him to attend ANCOC.  There is no
indication that the Army created any undue delay in completing these
personnel actions.  That the applicant did not complete ANCOC prior to the
convening of the CY 2003 MSG Selection Board is a result of his poor
management of his own career.

4.  There is no error or injustice in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hof___  __mjnt__  __pbf___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                        Hubert O. Fry, Jr.
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001256                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050223                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.1100                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]