RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003398


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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, selection for promotion to sergeant
first class (SFC) in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he feels there has been an error
regarding his promotion to pay grade E-7.  He also states that due to
electronic mail (email) traffic between the 1st Mobilization Brigade,
Command Sergeant Major (CSM), the 96th Regional Readiness Command (RRC),
and himself, the Army Reserve G1 letter, and the cover of his promotion
packet, there has been an error in his promotion to SFC.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his promotion packet cover letter, his
email correspondence, and a letter from the Army Reserve G1, in support of
his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the USAR, Delayed
Entry/Enlistment Program, in pay grade E-1, on 15 September 1981, for 6
years.

2.  The applicant entered on active duty on 8 June 1982.  He was promoted
to sergeant, pay grade E-5, on 1 September 1990.  He was released from
active duty on 31 May 1997 and transferred to the USAR Control Group
(Reinforcement).

3.  The applicant's Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for
the period September 1999 to August 2000 shows his height as 69" and weight
as 210 and he was in compliance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-9.  The
applicant signed the report on 1 September 2000.  The NCOER for the period
September 2000 to August 2001 shows his height as 65" and weight as 204 and
he was in compliance with AR 600-9.  The applicant signed the report on
1 September 2001.  The NCOER for the period September 2001 to August 2002
shows his height as 70" and weight as 207 and he was in compliance with AR
600-9, the rater commented that "profile does not hinder duty performance"
and "Soldier is in compliance with AR 600-9."  The applicant signed the
report on 13 January 2003.

4.  The applicant was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, on
1 June 2002.

5.  The NCOER for the period September 2002 to January 2003 shows his
height as 70" and weight as 226 and he was in compliance with AR 600-9.
The applicant signed the report on 17 February 2004.  The NCOER for the
period February 2003 to January 2004 shows his height as 70" and weight as
225 and he did not meet the height and weight standards.  The applicant
signed the report on 25 February 2004.

6.  The DA Form 5500R, dated 14 April 2004, shows the applicant's age as
39, his height as 72", and his weight as 227.  Remarks shows he was
authorized 24% body fat.  His body fat content was 23.81 percent and he was
determined to be in compliance with AR 600-9.

7.  The applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom on 16 January 2005 for 179 days, with an end date of 13 July 2005.

8.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 14 July 2005 for 2 years,
3 months, and 17 days, to obtain 20 years of active Federal service under
the Extended Active Duty Sanctuary Program.

9.  In email correspondence, dated 13 December 2005, the CSM, 5025th
Garrison Support Unit (GSU), advised the applicant that the policy at the
time when his packet came to the board was to notify the unit when a
deficiency was identified and give them time to make corrections.  He can't
explain why the 5025th never corrected the deficiency.  He can only assume
human error on the part of the PSNCO or others who could have responded to
the request for correction, but he couldn't say for certain.

10.  In correspondence, dated 5 January 2005, the applicant advised that
the Fort Carson Inspector General's (IG) office informed him that the 96th
RRC's IG officer stated to them that a Soldier has one year from the time
that the board results are published to request a relook in writing.  The
applicant stated that he was never informed of this option and did not find
out about the actual facts until October 2005.

11.  In a letter, dated 31 January 2006, a staff member of the Army Reserve
G1, responded to a member of congress (MOC) regarding the applicant's
promotion to SFC. The applicant's promotion packet was considered for the
96th RRC Senior Enlisted Promotion Board in May 2004.  The applicant was
considered and unfortunately not selected for promotion.  Although the
promotion board may not divulge reasons why Soldiers are selected or not
selected for promotion, the MOC was assured all Soldiers qualified to
submit promotion packets were considered.  Promotion of the best qualified
Soldiers was limited to availability of positions.  Since the applicant was
now [at the time] a member of the Active Army, he could not be considered
for promotion by an Army Reserve Standby Promotion board.  However, if the
applicant desired, he could apply to the Army Review Boards Agency to
pursue any further perceived injustices.  However, the MOC was asked to
please note that the filing of such an application did not imply that
favorable action would be taken.

12.  In a Memorandum For Record, dated 6 February 2006, the Deputy,
Directorate of Logistics, Headquarters, United States Army Garrison, Fort
Carson, Colorado, stated that during April 2004 the eligible SSGs from the
5025th GSU/1st Mobilization Brigade were preparing their respective
packages for promotion consideration.  As the Company Commander of
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, it was his responsibility to review
the packets and verify.

13.  On an unknown date, the applicant's promotion packet was returned to
the 5025th GSU.  The packet was annotated "Not Boarded!"  A discrepancy
between the height on his photo, the DA 705, and DA 2A showed a height of
70 inches.  The applicant's DA 5500 showed a height of 72 inches.  There
was a 2 inch difference in these records.

14.  In an advisory opinion, dated 6 October 2006, the Army Reserve G1,
stated that the applicant prepared a promotion packet for the 96th RRC's
Senior Enlisted Promotion Board which convened in May 2004.  The applicant
believed his packet was not considered because of height discrepancies
between the photograph, the Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2A),
and the Body Fat Content Worksheet (Male) (DA Form 5500R).  The applicant
requested to be promoted to SFC, or considered by another board.  The
applicant's requests were not clearly expressed in the application to the
Board; however, it appeared he is requesting to be promoted to SFC or for
consideration by another promotion board.

15.  She also stated that at the time the May 2004 board convened, Army
Regulation 140-158, Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion and
Reduction, 17 December 1997, was the current guidance.  Under this
guidance, a Soldier had to be in a promotable status at the time the board
convened in order to be considered for promotion to SFC.  In order to be in
a promotable status, a Soldier was required to meet the requirements listed
in paragraph 1-14.  Paragraph 1-14 indicated a Soldier would have been
required to meet the body fat standards of AR 600-9 (The Army Weight
Control Program).  The applicant's DA Form 5500R indicated a height of 72
inches, as stated in enclosure 1.8 of enclosure 1; however, the applicant
was not 72 inches tall, but was 70 inches tall according to the physical
data found in Total Army Personnel Database-Reserve and his last four
NCOERs.

16.  She also stated that the calculations for his fat percentage on the DA
Form 5500 would have been incorrect since the height factor is used when
calculating the body fat percentage.  A blank DA Form 5500 and instructions
for preparing the DA Form 5500R were provided at enclosures 4 and 5.  With
a gain of 2 inches, the applicant would have appeared to have met the body
fat standards. In order to determined the relevance of the 2 inches, a
review of the applicant's records was initiated.  His NCOERs revealed that
the applicant had not met the body fat standards since 2002 and that the 2
inch difference was significant.

17.  The G1 concluded her opinion by stating that based on the information,
the applicant was not eligible for promotion consideration since he was in
a non-promotable status due to his failure to meet body fat standards.  The
Army Reserve G1 recommended that the Board provide no relief for this
Soldier.

18.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his
acknowledgment and/or rebuttal on 10 October 2006.  In a rebuttal to the
advisory opinion, dated 25 October 2006, a staff member of the Deputy
Military Personnel Division (DMPD), Headquarters, Division West, First US
Army and Fort Carson, Colorado, stated that in October 2005, the S1 Non-
Commissioned Officer in Change (NCOIC) handed the applicant his promotion
packet from the May 2004 board.  The NCOIC advised the applicant that he
had been holding the packet because they did not know how to reach him.
The applicant had not been notified that his promotion packet had been
returned to the 5025th GSU for discrepancies, but written on the cover of
the packet was "NOT BOARDED!" "Discrepancy between height on photo, DA Form
705, and height on DA 5505, Photo, 705 & 2A show height of 70" DA 5505
shows height of 72", 2" Difference."

19.  The DMPD also stated that in subsequent email traffic with CSM
_______, the 5025th's CSM, on 13 December 2005, the CSM stated that the
Senior Promotion NCOIC, 96th RRC, could not explain why the 5025th never
corrected the deficiency.  The applicant's packet had not been boarded and
had been returned to the 5025th to correct.  CSM ___ wrote, "Bottom line,
the 96th stands by their decision to return the packet unboarded."

20.  This official further stated that once the applicant submitted his
promotion packet, he had a reasonable expectation that his chain of command
would ensure his promotion packet was complete, accurate, and that they
would correct any deficiencies the promotion board brought forward in a
timely manner.  The applicant expected that his unit would notify him of
discrepancies in his promotion packet so he could resolve any issues.  In
his case, the applicant did not learn of the discrepancy with his height
until October 2005, well past the May 2004 board.

21.  The DMPD refuted the last sentence in the advisory opinion that reads,
"the applicant had not met body fat standards since 2002."  The DMPD added
there is no evidence to support this claim.  The DMPD enclosed five NCOERS
for the period from 1999 to 2004 which were part of the promotion packet.
Four of these state that the applicant met height/weight standards in AR
600-9.  Only one NCOER stated that he was not within body fat standards.
If the applicant had been overweight in 2002, he would have been flagged
and not promotable, but he was promoted to staff sergeant on 1 June 2002.

22.  The DMPD further stated that the opinion was correct that there was a
discrepancy between the applicant's height on his DA photo and the DA Form
5505.  The 5025th GSU was responsible for completing the DA Form 5505.
They put his height as 72 inches and two NCOs signed the form.  With the
correct height of 70 inches, the applicant would have not met the body fat
standard of 24%.  He would have been 24.65%, but had he known this, he
could have worked on it prior to the board.  He trusted the unit to
complete the form and do the math correctly which did not happen.  The
DMPD, recommended the applicant be promoted to SFC or allow his original
packet to be reconsidered for promotion.  The applicant's chain of command
certified his packet and forwarded it to the May 2004 promotion board but
they made mistakes on the DA Form 5505.  These mistakes became
discrepancies at the board, the packet was returned to the 5025th, the
5025th did not correct the deficiencies or attempt to resolve the issue
with the applicant, and as a result, the applicant's packet was not
boarded.  Someone failed to take care of this Soldier.

23.  AR 140-158, prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the
promotion of enlisted Reserve Soldiers.  This regulation specifies that a
Soldier will not be advanced or promoted as long as he/she exceeds the body
standards per AR 600-9 and no underlying or associated disease ha been
found to cause the condition.  Promotable status will be regained when the
promotion authority determines the Soldier is no longer required to be in a
weight control program.  Soldiers must be in a promotable status at the
time the board convened in order to be considered for promotion.

24.  AR 140-158 also specifies that personnel officers and NCOs should
ensure the records or packets are current and complete and contain a
statement signed by the Soldier indicating that he or she has reviewed the
record or packet, as applicable, and found it to be complete and accurate.
The packet must also contain a current official photograph.  The Soldier's
height and weight must be entered in the lower margin on the front side of
the photograph by the unit commander.  Only the records or packets of
Soldier meeting the eligibility criteria for selection board consideration
will be forwarded.

25.  AR 140-158 also specifies that promotion consideration/reconsideration
by an Army Reserve Standby Promotion Board may only be based on erroneous
non-consideration or records were not properly constituted due to a
material error when reviewed by a regular board.  Failure or inability of a
Soldier to submit documents before the cut-off date established in the
board announcement for submission of documents cannot be used as a basis to
request reconsideration.  However, the absence of a document from a
Soldier's board file may constitute a material error.

26.  AR 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) specifies that each Soldier
is responsible for meeting the standards prescribed in this regulation.
Commander and supervisors will implement the Army Weight Control Program,
to include evaluation of the weight and military appearance of all Soldiers
under their jurisdiction, to include measuring body fat as prescribed in
this regulation.  Table 1, specified that Soldiers in the age group 28-39
(to include the applicant) were allowed 24% maximum body fat content.
Personnel who are overweight will be considered non-promotable.

27.  AR 600-9, Table 1, specifies that a male Soldier with a height of 70"
in the age group of 28-39 years, the screening table weight, will be 189
lbs.  A male Solider with a height of 72 inches in the age of 28-39 years,
the screening table weight will be 200 lbs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not
entitled to promotion consideration to SFC by an Army Reserve Standby
Promotion Board or promotion to SFC.  He has not shown error, injustice, or
inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a packet for
promotion consideration to SFC.  In his application to this Board, the
applicant stated that he was not considered because of height discrepancies
in the applicant's height listed on his photograph, his DA Form 2A, and DA
Form 5500.  The Army Reserve G1 initiated a review of the applicant's
records to determine the relevance of the discrepancies.  The applicant's
NCOERs revealed that he had not met the body fat standards since 2002 and
that the 2 inch difference was significant.  With a gain of 2 inches, the
applicant would appear to meet the body fat standards.  Based on this
information, it was determined that the applicant was not eligible for
promotion consideration by the May 2004 board since he was in a non-
promotable status due to his failure to meet body fat standards.

3.  Notwithstanding the rebuttal to the advisory opinion from the DMPD, in
accordance with AR 600-9, the applicant did not meet the requirements of
being in a promotable status when the promotion board convened. The
applicant states that he was not advised of the discrepancies with his
height until October 2005, well past the May 2004 board; however, the
applicant affixed his signature on all of his NCOERs verifying that all
administrative data to include the height/weight entries was correct.  All
Soldiers must also review their record or packet to verify it is complete
and accurate.  Promotion authorities will only submit promotion packets of
all Soldiers who are in a promotable status for consideration.  At time of
the May 2004 promotion board, the applicant's promotion packet was not
qualified for submission as it showed he was not in compliance with height
and weight standards; therefore, he was not in a promotable status.  Only
Soldiers qualified to submit promotion packets were considered.

4.  The applicant entered on active duty on 14 July 2005 for 2 years, 3
months, and 17 days to obtain 20 years of active Federal service;
therefore, since he is now a member of the Active Army, he is not eligible
for promotion consideration by an Army Reserve Standby Promotion board.
The applicant also has not shown that he was promoted to SFC or ordered to
active duty in the grade of SFC; therefore, he is not entitled to promotion
to SFC while on his current tour of active duty.

5.  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

__AM___  ___DLL__  ___WFC_  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 F. Crain________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003398                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061130                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |131.10                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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