RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050015739


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 a memorandum for administrative removal
from a selection board/promotion list be removed from the restricted
portion of his Official Military Personnel File.

2.  The applicant states that he believes that the memorandum could have an
adverse impact on future selection boards.  He states that future selection
board members may see that he refused promotion to the pay grade of E-7 in
the past and question why he should be promoted again.  He states that if
the memorandum is read during the selection process it could affect his
chances for promotion as he has not been selected for promotion since the
memorandum was filed in his record.  He states that since he declined the
promotion to the pay grade of E-7, he has been twice passed over.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 26 July 1989, he enlisted in the Army in St. Louis, Missouri, for 4
years, in the pay grade of E-2.  He successfully completed his training as
a cavalry scout.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 26 January
1990 and to the pay grade of E-4 on 2 August 1991.  The applicant was
promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 February 1993 and through continuous
reenlistments, he is currently on active duty in the United States Army.
He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 August 1998.

2.  The available records shows that the applicant was assigned to the
United States Army Recruiting Battalion, performing the duties of a
recruiter when orders were published on 25 September 2001, notifying him
that his name was being administratively removed from the promotion
selection list.  According to the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions
Branch, United States Total Army Personnel Command, the applicant was
considered and selected for promotion by the Sergeant First Class and
Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Selection Board.  The notification
indicates that, based on his declination of promotion and mandatory
reclassification, his name was administratively removed from the list and
the notification was filed on the restricted portion of his OMPF.

3.  Army Regulation 600-37 sets forth policies and procedures to authorize
placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual
official personnel files; to ensure that unfavorable information that is
unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in
individual official personnel files; and to ensure that the best interests
of both the Army and the soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable
information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official
personnel files.  This regulation provides, in pertinent part, that once an
official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be
administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective
decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests
with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing
nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby
warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.  Normally,
consideration of appeals is restricted to grades E6 and above, to officers,
and to warrant officers. Although any soldier may appeal the inclusion of a
document placed in his or her file under this regulation, the appeals of
soldiers in grades below E-6 will only be considered as an exception to
policy.  This does not include documents that have their own regulatory
appeal authority such as evaluation reports and court-martial orders.
Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting
evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered.

4.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, serves as
the authority for the conduct of selection boards.  It provides, in
pertinent part, that selection board members may not record their reasons
nor give any reasons for selection or nonselection.  Selections are based
on relative qualifications and the projected need in each military
occupational specialty for E-7, E-8, and E-9.  A Soldier within an
announced zone of consideration may write to the President of the selection
board inviting attention to any matter he or she feels is important in
consideration of his or her records and are considered privileged
information and will not be filed in the OMPF.

5.  Army Regulation 600-8-104, Military Personnel Information Management/
Records, provides in pertinent part, that disciplinary information filed on
the restricted fiche will be provided to the command sergeant
major/sergeant major (CSM/SGM), SGM Academy selection and CSM/SGM retention
boards to ensure the best qualified soldiers are selected for these
positions of highest trust.  While information contained on the restricted
fiche is normally not routinely provided to selection boards other than the
E-9 boards described above, the restricted fiche may be released to a
Department of the Army Selection Board.  The board president will request
permission from the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (G-1) to
review specific restricted information when he or she believes the
information is crucial to the selection process.  The board president must
make the request in writing unless waived by the appropriate authority.  If
the request is approved, the authorization will be forwarded to the
custodian of the OMPF, who will enter the authorization on the restricted
fiche of the OMPF.
13.  Paragraph 5d. of the “Memorandum of Instruction for the FY05 Sergeant
First Class Selection Board” provided in pertinent part, “that the
selection board will be provided the performance portion of the OMPF of all
eligible NCOs and may also be provided disciplinary data from the
restricted portion of the OMPF in accordance with ODCS, G-1, memorandum
dated 21 January 2002.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The notification of administrative removal from the promotion selection
list was filed in his OMPF in compliance with applicable regulations and is
properly filed in the restricted portion of his fiche.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, the Army has an
interest in maintaining certain records and, the applicant has failed to
provide evidence to show why the notification of administrative removal
from the promotion selection list should not remain a matter of record.

3.  His contention that promotion selection boards may have been reviewing
the notification of administrative removal from the promotion selection
list that is filed on his restricted fiche and that it is the resultant
cause why he has not been selected for promotion has been noted and found
to lack merit.  Promotion boards for selection to the pay grades of E-7 and
E-8 are not routinely provided information from the restricted fiche of
eligible Soldiers.  While information may be provided on a case by case
basis to promotion boards, a record of such actions must be placed on the
individual Soldier’s restricted fiche to document that approval of such
actions were approved or occurred.

4.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant has not been selected for
promotion to the pay grade of E-7, it is a well known fact that not
everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is
selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are
promotion allocations.  Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with
choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the
time.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mkp___  __lds___  __mjf___  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.




                                  Margaret K. Patterson
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050015739                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051110                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  310  |131.0000/PROMOTION                      |
|2.  313                 |1310300/FAILURE TO BE CONSIDERED        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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