RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           8 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050000450


      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. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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 the removal of a DA Form 1059 (Service School
Academic Evaluation Report) dated 17 July 1996 from his Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF) and promotion reconsideration to the pay grade of E-7
by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has been nonselected for
promotion to the pay grade of E-7 on several occasions.  He also states
that while he failed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC)
initially, he subsequently completed the course and is now an instructor at
the course.  He continues by stating that he always gives his best;
however, when Soldiers whom he mentored are being promoted and he is not,
it is time to relook himself.

3.  The applicant provides copies of evaluation reports and transcripts of
his education qualifications, and statistical results from the 2004
Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He enlisted in Louisville, Kentucky, on 8 August 1988 for a period of 4
years and training as a Personnel Information System Specialist.  He
completed his basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and his
advanced individual training at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.

2.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments
and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 July 1994.

3.  On 17 July 1996, an Academic Evaluation Report (AER) was prepared at
Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to reflect that the applicant had failed to
meet the course standards for completion of the PLDC.

4.  On 13 July 1999, an AER was completed at Fort Jackson to reflect that
the applicant had achieved course standards for the PLDC.

5.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 April 2000 and was
transferred to Alaska in January 2001, where he was assigned as the
personnel sergeant for the NCO Academy and subsequently received an
assignment as a small group leader and instructor at the PLDC.

6.  A review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Department of the Army
Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) or the Enlisted Special Review Board
(ESRB) to have his AER transferred to the Restricted Fiche of his OMPF.
However, the actions of this Board do not preclude him from doing so.

7.  Army Regulation 623-1 establishes the policies and procedures for the
Academic Evaluation Reporting System.  It provides, in pertinent part, that
that a DA Form 1059 (AER) will be prepared for all enlisted personnel
taking resident and nonresident Noncommissioned Officer Education System
(NCOES) courses (regardless of length or component).  A copy of the AER
will be forwarded for filing in the performance fiche of the individual’s
OMPF within 60 days after completion of the report.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the rules and steps for managing the
Centralized Promotion System for promotion to the grade of E-7 though E-9.
It provides, in pertinent part, that selection boards will recommend a
specified number of Soldiers by military occupational specialty (MOS) from
the zones of consideration who are best qualified to meet the needs of the
Army.  Soldiers who are not selected for promotion will not be provided
specific reasons for nonselection.  Board members may not record their
reasons or give reasons for selection or nonselection.  It further provides
that no Soldier may appear in person before a Department of the Army (DA)
Selection Board; however, a Soldier within the announced zone may write to
the president of the board inviting attention to any matter he or she feels
is important in considering his or her record.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 serves as the authority for processing cases
for STAB consideration.  It states, in pertinent part, that the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) or its designee may approve cases for
referral to a STAB upon determining that a material error existed in a
soldier’s OMPF when the file was reviewed by a promotion board and that had
the error not existed when reviewed, the soldier may have had a reasonable
chance for selection.

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 that requirement.


2.  The applicant has not contended that the AER was or is improperly filed
in his OMPF or that it contains administrative errors which render the
report invalid.  Therefore, it appears that there is no basis to remove a
properly constituted and filed AER from his OMPF or to grant him promotion
reconsideration.

3.  It is a well known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis
for selection or nonselection of Soldiers considered by DA Centralized
Selection Boards.

4.  The applicant’s assertion that the presence of the contested AER in his
OMPF serves as the basis for his continued nonselection for promotion has
been noted and appears to be at best speculative on his part.

5.  While it is unfortunate that he has not been selected for promotion,
rarely are all persons considered by such boards in a given MOS selected
for promotion.  The Boards are tasked to determine which of the eligible
Soldiers at a given time are best qualified to meet the needs of the Army
at that time.

6.  Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the
records reviewed at the time the selection board convened, it would not be
appropriate for the Board to attempt to second-guess those selection boards
who failed to select him for promotion or attempt to ascertain why he was
not selected.

7.  The contested AER is properly filed in his OMPF and he has failed to
provide sufficient evidence to show why it should not remain a matter of
record.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wdp___  __jtm___  __ljo___  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                 |AR20050000450                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050908                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |328/REM AER                             |
|1.134.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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