RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            7 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040008385


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |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 reinstated to the Advanced
Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).

2.  The applicant stated, in his request to the U. S. Army Human Resources
Command (USAHRC) for reinstatement to ANCOC, that he failed to meet height
and weight standards during his in-processing to ANCOC on 8 July 2003
because of extenuating circumstances.

3.  The applicant stated that his weight and percent body fat were not an
issue prior to 26 December 2001, when he had two operations, on each of his
ankles, which prevented him from participating in any aerobic conditioning
for over one year.  He was not able to do more than walk until October of
2002.  That          11-month period of relative inactivity resulted in his
inability to maintain an appropriate level of weight.  Since October 2002,
he had dedicated himself to regaining the Army standard in height and
weight.  As a result, he lost over        40 pounds since his recovery.
His chain of command was supportive, and his NCO evaluation reports
(NCOERs) document that he had been a superb Soldier. He would not
disappoint the Army if he were authorized to be reinstated to ANCOC and he
was dedicated to continuing his recovery and continuing his weight loss.

4.  The applicant provided his 10 August 2003 request for reinstatement;
his division supervisor's 11 August 2003 endorsement of his request; his
Group commander's endorsement of his request; his NCOERs for the periods
ending June 2001, June 2002, and June 2003; his Enlisted Record Brief;
three DA Forms 5500-R (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Male)) dated 12 June
2003, 8 July 2003 (with three ANCOC enrollment denial documents), and 10
July 2003; a DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard last dated
12 June 2003; and copies of his medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 January 1986.

2.  On 26 December 2001, the applicant underwent an operation to correct
right ankle instability.  On 22 January 2002, he was given a temporary
physical profile that forbade duty on soft terrain that could not be
negotiated with crutches as he must not bear weight on the foot that was
operated on.  Until 6 February 2002, he could only swim for aerobic
activity.  From 6 February until 6 March 2002, he could walk, swim, or use
a stationary bike for conditioning.  On 13 March 2002, he underwent an
operation to correct left ankle instability.
3.  The applicant's NCOERs for the periods ending June 2001 and June 2002
show he was rated as "excellence" (the highest possible rating) in the five
areas of NCO responsibilities.  His rater rated his overall potential as
"among the best" (the highest possible rating).  His senior rater rated his
overall performance and overall potential as "1" (the highest possible
ratings).  His NCOER for the period ending June 2002 shows he weighed 205
pounds.

4.  U. S. Total Army Personnel Command Order Number 261-11 dated
  18 September 2002 promoted him to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 in
military occupational specialty 13D (Field Artillery Tactical Data Systems
Specialist) effective 1 October 2002 conditional upon his successful
completion of ANCOC.  The orders informed him that he would have his
promotion revoked and his name removed from the centralized list if they
failed to meet the ANCOC requirement.

5.  On 12 June 2003, the applicant was weighed in and taped for body fat
percentage by his unit.  His weight was 226 pounds (maximum screening table
weight 194 pounds) and his body fat percentage was determined to be
23.51 percent (a maximum of 24 percent authorized).

6.  On 8 July 2003, the applicant was weighed in and taped upon arrival at
ANCOC.  His weight was 224 pounds and his body fat percentage was
determined to be 25.49 per cent.  A Denied Enrollment Spot Report dated 8
July 2003 indicated the applicant failed three consecutive tapings by three
different teams; all three times he exceeded his maximum allowed body fat
percentage.  The School Chief recommended he be denied enrollment.  By
memorandum dated 8 July 2003, the applicant was notified that he was being
denied enrollment to ANCOC for failing to meet body composition standards
in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9.  He was informed that, as a
consequence, he would be immediately removed from the recommended list or,
if conditionally promoted, would have his conditional promotion revoked and
be removed from the list.  He would recompete for promotion.  He
acknowledged that he received a copy of the correspondence.

7.  On 12 July 2003, the applicant was weighed in and taped for body fat
percentage by his unit.  His weight was 224 pounds and his body fat
percentage was determined to be 23.87 percent.

8.  The applicant's NCOER for the periods ending June 2003 shows he was
rated as "excellence" in two of the five areas of NCO responsibilities and
as "success" in the other three areas.  His rater rated his overall
potential as "among the best." His senior rater rated his overall
performance and overall potential as "1."

9.  On 10 August 2003, the applicant requested reinstatement in ANCOC.  His
chain of command strongly supported his request.

10.  On 10 September 2003, the applicant was removed from the promotion
list.

11.  On 31 October 2003, USAHRC disapproved the applicant's request for
reinstatement in ANCOC.

12.  On 27 August 2004, the applicant completed ANCOC.  Effective 1 January
2005, he was promoted to SFC.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states,
in pertinent part, that a Soldier must be an ANCOC graduate for promotion
to SFC. Soldiers who are selected for promotion to SFC but have not met the
NCO Education System (NCOES) requirement will be promoted conditionally.
Soldiers who fail to successfully complete or do not attend their scheduled
NCOES class will be administratively reduced and removed from the list.
Provided otherwise eligible, those Soldiers will recompete to regain
promotable status.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he could not participate in any aerobic
conditioning other than walking during the one-year recovery period after
his December 2001 ankle operation.  However, his January 2002 temporary
physical profile indicated that he could swim and, after 6 February 2002
that he could walk, swim, or use a stationary bike for conditioning.
Presumably he received a similar physical profile after his March 2002
operation.

2.  Even if the applicant could not swim, water exercises are often
recommended by doctors to those (such as the elderly or post-surgical
patients) who are concerned about the impact of exercise on the body and
which can provide aerobic fitness.  If exercise to control his weight
proved difficult, he could have seen his doctor for a sensible diet plan.

3.  The Board recognizes that the three NCOERs provided by the applicant
show he was a superb Soldier.  The Army recognized that by recommending him
for promotion to SFC the first time, and by recommending him for promotion
to SFC a second time.  However, one of the mandatory requirements for
promotion to SFC is completion of ANCOC.  One of the requirements for
attendance at ANCOC is to meet the Army's weight and percent body fat
standards.

4.  The Board recognizes that three weeks prior to the applicant arriving
at ANCOC he passed the tape test at his unit with a body fat percentage of
23.51 percent and two days after ANCOC personnel taped him he passed the
tape test at his unit again with a body fat percentage of 23.87 percent.
Both of these measurements were very close to the maximum allowable 24
percent body fat authorized.

5.  However, three different teams of ANCOC personnel taped the applicant
and he failed the tape test each time.  The Board presumes, and there is no
evidence to show otherwise, that the ANCOC personnel had no reason to
mistape him.  Given that his two unit tape measurements were so close to
the maximum and given his considerable weight gain with insufficient
evidence that he could not exercise or diet more, it appears that USAHRC
made a reasonable decision not to reinstate him to ANCOC.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wdp__  __kyf___  __klw___  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.




            __William D. Powers___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008385                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050607                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |118.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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