RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                              10 JANUARY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:              AR20050017485


      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. Kenneth Wright                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruier                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawly Sabree                  |     |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, in effect, that she be promoted to the pay
grade of   E-9.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was not considered by the
Calendar Year (CY) 2003 E-9 Promotion Selection Board and was unjustly not
selected for promotion with her peers.

3.  The applicant provides an exhibit list with her application consisting
of 10 tabs.  She also provides a copy of the considered/selected list for
the CY2003 Command Sergeant Major Designee Selection Board, which was
released on 22 January 2004.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the Board correct her records to show that she
was selected and promoted by the CY 2003 E-9 Promotion Selection Board,
that her records be corrected to show that she served in the pay grade of E-
9 and that she be paid all back pay and allowances to which she is
entitled.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant was unjustly not
considered for promotion by the CY 2003 E-9 Promotion Selection Board in
direct contravention of the applicable Army Regulations and that the Board
should correct this error by promoting her to the pay grade of E-9 in the
same order that she would have been selected had she been considered by
that board and that she be granted all back pay and allowances to that
date.  He also contends that discrimination may have been a possible
explanation for her not being considered for promotion.

3.  Counsel provides no additional documents other than those listed on the
Exhibits Page.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted on 21 May 1979 for a period of 4 years and
training as a telecommunications center specialist.  She completed her
training and has remained on active duty through a series of continuous
reenlistments.

2.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 in 1982, to the pay grade of E-
6 in 1985, to the pay grade of E-7 in 1988 and to the pay grade of E-8 on 1
May 1996.  She is a graduate of the First Sergeants Course and the
Sergeants Major Academy.

3.  The CY 2003 E-9 Promotion Selection Board convened at the United States
Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, to
consider Soldiers eligible for promotion to the pay grade of E-9.  The
Primary Zone of consideration for promotion to the rank of sergeant major
(SGM) was all first sergeants and master sergeants with a date of rank of
30 September 2000 or earlier.  The board was tasked with selecting the best
qualified soldiers in the zone of consideration by military occupational
specialty (MOS) for promotion to the rank of SGM.

4.  The results of the CY2003 SGM (E-9) Promotion Selection Board were
released on 20 November 2003.  The applicant was considered but was not
selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by that board.  In the
processing of this case a staff member of the Board contacted officials of
the Human Resources Command – Alexandria, Enlisted Promotions Branch to
determine if she had in fact been considered by the CY03 E-9 Promotion
Selection Board.  Officials at that agency confirmed that she had in fact
been considered for promotion and was not selected by that board.  The
staff of the Board was provided with a copy of the considered list for that
board.

5.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the
applicant requested consideration by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB).

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the policies and procedures for
convening Standby Advisory Boards (STAB).  It provides, in pertinent part,
that STABS are formed to prevent an injustice to enlisted Soldiers who were
eligible for promotion but whose records contained a material error when
reviewed by the selection board or whose records were not reviewed and
should have been.  A material error is defined in that regulation as one or
more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official
or reviewing body, caused an individual’s nonselection by a promotion
board.  Had such errors been corrected at the time the individual been
considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual
would have been recommended for promotion.  Headquarters will normally not
determine that a material error existed if the administrative error was
immaterial, if the Soldier exercising reasonable diligence, could have
discovered the error or omission, or if the Soldier could have taken timely
corrective action by notifying officials at the Department of the error and
providing any relevant documentation.

7.  That regulation also provides that selection boards will recommend a
specific number of Soldiers by MOS from the zones of consideration who are
the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.  Soldiers who are not
selected for promotion will not be provided specific reasons for their
nonselection and Board Members may not record their reasons or give reasons
for selection or nonselection.  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 records.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that she was not considered by the CY2003 E-
9 Promotion Selection Board has been noted and found to be without merit.
The applicant was considered by that board and was not selected.  The list
provided by the applicant was the CSM designee selection list that was
released 2 months after the SGM Selection list was released, which was the
only year the list was separated in such a way.

2.  The applicant’s contention that her failure to be considered may
possibly be the result of discrimination has also been noted.  However, the
applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with her
application or the evidence of record that there was any evidence of
discrimination involved.  This is especially true since she was in fact
considered by the selection board.

3.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for
promotion by that board, it is a well known fact that promotion selection
boards must select the best qualified soldiers to meet the needs of the
Army within each MOS and that there are normally more Soldiers eligible for
promotion than there are promotions available.

4.  Accordingly, there are always Soldiers who are nonselected within a
given MOS and this Board is not in a position to second-guess the selection
boards that had the advantage of reviewing all of the records of Soldiers
eligible in order to determine who was best qualified to meet the needs of
the Army at that time.

5.  Inasmuch as the applicant was considered for promotion by the board in
question and she has not shown that she was not properly considered by that
board, there appears to be no basis to grant her request.


6.  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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____KW_  ___DD __  __QS ___  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.





            ____Kenneth Wright___________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017485                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060110                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|ISSUES                  |310/PROMOTION                           |
|1.131.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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