RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050011756


      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. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose A. Martinez              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne M. Douglas            |     |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 his promotion to Sergeant First Class
(SFC), E-7 be reinstated with his original date of rank so he can retire as
an SFC.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was erroneously reduced from
SFC to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6.  His battalion Command Sergeant Major
(CSM) deliberately caused him to be administratively reduced.  He states
that he was under medication at the time and was involved in 4 car wrecks
over an 18 month period which prevented him from attending his mandatory
Advanced Non-commissioned Officer Advance Course (ANCOC).

3.  The applicant states that his command did not adhere to Army Regulation
600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) when they removed him from
the promotion list by not documenting and justifying his reduction or
giving him the proper counseling on the basis of his removal.  He stated
that his recommendation for removal from the promotion list for not meeting
weight requirements was not within the time prescribed in Army Regulation
600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), which states a Soldier must be
enrolled in the program provided no underlying or associated disease is
found to be the cause of the overweight condition.

4.  The applicant further states that his command did not adhere to Army
Regulation 600-9 which states, in effect, that a medical evaluation will be
accomplished by medical care personnel when a Soldier has medical
limitations. He states that he has several chronic medical conditions that
are all documented and that his ongoing medical treatment has caused weight
gain.  He concluded that at no time did any person in his chain of command
take in consideration the medical treatment he was under at the time of his
reduction.

5.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 1984.  He was
promoted to SSG, E-6 on 1 January 1994 in military occupational specialty
88H (Cargo Specialist).

2.  U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Order Number 104-26, dated
14 April 1998, conditionally promoted the applicant to SFC.  The orders
stated, in pertinent part, Soldiers who received a conditional promotion
would have their promotion orders revoked and their names removed from the
centralized list if they failed to meet the NCOES (NCO Education System)
requirements.

3.  A DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag))
dated 4 March 2003 shows the applicant was flagged for weight control
program effective 4 March 2003.

4.  PERSCOM memorandum from the Sergeant Major (SGM), Training Division,
dated 10 March 2003, recommended revocation of the applicant's promotion
orders and removal from the SFC promotion list.  The applicant was
cancelled from enrollment in ANCOC for failure to meet weight control
standards.

5.  By memorandum dated 17 March 2003, PERSCOM informed the applicant he
had been administratively removed from the promotion selection list based
on his cancellation from ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of
Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program).

6.  PERSCOM Order Number 76-3, dated 17 March 2003, revoked the applicant's
SFC promotion orders and stated, in the additional instructions, that he
had been administratively removed from the SFC promotion list.  He was
granted defacto status for the period of 1 May 1998 through 4 March 2003.

7.  By memorandum dated 4 April 2003, Headquarters and Headquarters
Company, 10th Transportation Battalion informed the applicant he was
entered in a Weight Control Program under the provisions of Army Regulation
600-8-2 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)).  The
memorandum stated "Any medical information given to you indicating that you
cannot be successfully enrolled in the overweight program must be produced
and submitted to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 10th Transportation
Battalion Training Non-commissioned Officer."

8.  By memorandum dated 23 June 2004, Headquarters and Headquarters
Company, 10th Transportation Battalion to Commander, 7th Transportation
Group, Subject: Commander Inquiry shows that the applicant's concern about
his reduction to SSG, E-6 was addressed.

9.  His commander stated that the applicant was scheduled to attend ANCOC
in January 2002.  However, he was involved in three motor vehicle
accidents, two of which resulted in him being hospitalized, resulting in
him not being able to attend school.  The applicant was rescheduled for
ANCOC in July 2003, but was unable to attend due to failing the Army
height/weight standard.

10.  Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) states
commanders and supervisors will monitor all members of their command
(officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel) to insure that they
maintain proper weight, body composition, and personal appearance.
Personnel exceeding the screening table weight or identified by the
commander or supervisor for a special evaluation will have a determination
made of body fat percent body percentage.  Identification and counseling of
overweight personnel are required.  Soldiers will not be authorized to
attend professional military or civilian schooling.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), the
version in effect at the time, stated that, effective 1 October 1993, the
Army linked NCOES to promotion to SSG, SFC, and SGM.  For promotion to SFC,
a Soldier must be an ANCOC graduate.  Soldiers selected for promotion to
SSG, SFC, and SGM but have not met the 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was promoted to SFC conditional upon his successfully
completing ANCOC.  On 17 March 2003, he was removed from the promotion
selection list based on his cancellation from ANCOC due to his failure to
meet the standards of Army Regulation 600-9.  He was administratively
removed from the SFC promotion list and his promotion orders were revoked.


2.  The applicant contends that his chain of command did not adhere to
regulatory guidelines prior to taking him off the promotion list.  Evidence
of record shows that prior to attending ANCOC he failed to meet the Army's
height/weight standard.  He was flagged from attending school and placed on
the Weight Control Program.   Evidence of record shows that, when he was
enrolled in the Weight Control Program, he was asked to submit any medical
information given to him indicating that he could not be successfully
enrolled in the overweight program and there is no evidence that he
complied.  He provides no evidence now to show his weight gain was the
result of a medical condition or medication.  There is no evidence of error
or injustice in this case and, therefore, there is no basis for granting
his request to reinstate his rank of Sergeant First Class.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA___  __JAM__  __ LMD _  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.




                                  __ James E. Anderholm _
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011756                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |25 October 2005                         |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0200.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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