RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012395 


	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.  


	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 her military records appear before an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board for the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/ Command Sergeant Major Promotion Boards.

2.  The applicant essentially states that her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) with an ending period of May 2003 was not submitted until after the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Promotion Boards, and therefore requests that she be reconsidered for promotion by these boards.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her application:

a.  a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 4 October 2005, in which she requested an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board, with three letters of recommendation from her chain of command;

b.  a Certificate of Training which shows that she completed the 96th Regional Readiness Command’s Company Team Leader Development Course from 23 to 27 August 2005;

c.  a Certificate of Wartime Service;

d.  a certificate and DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) which awarded her the Army Commendation Medal with Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 1 November 2004 to 9 June 2005;

e.  a diploma, dated 30 July 2004, which shows that she graduated from the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy;

f.  a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) which shows she graduated from the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy; and

	g.  NCOERs with ending periods of May 2003, May 2004, September 2004, and June 2005.
	




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged injustices which occurred on 6 October 2003 and 19 October 2004, the dates of the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Selection Boards.  The applications submitted in this case are dated 30 and 31 August 2006.

2.  The applicant provided a copy of her NCOER with an ending period of May 2003.  Part II (Authentication) of this NCOER appears to show that it was originally signed by the applicant and the rating officials on 1 March 2003, and that the months were altered to read that this NCOER was signed by the applicant and the rating officials on 1 May 2003.  Part Ii (Rated NCO Copy [Check one and Date]) of this NCOER shows that it was processed by the applicant’s servicing personnel office on 2 March 2003.  However, in the applicant’s DA Form 4187, she stated, in pertinent part, that this NCOER was not submitted until June 2005, because Colonel (Retired) W____, the reviewer on this NCOER, was not available for signature.

3.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the United States Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri.  It essentially stated that the applicant’s NCOER with an ending period of May 2003 was not received by the St. Louis Evaluations Reports Division for processing until 15 March 2005.  It also stated that to be included in a Soldier’s Board Consideration File, evaluations must be received early enough for processing and filing, and before the convening date of the Promotion Selection Board.  It concluded by essentially stating that since the 2003 and 2004 Promotion Selection Boards convened on 6 October 2003 and 19 October 2004, respectively, and the NCOER in question was not received until well after the convening dates of these boards, there is no basis for having her military records appear before an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board for the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Promotion Boards

4.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicany for comment and rebuttal.  The applicant responded by forwarding another copy of her 
DA Form 4187, dated 4 October 2005, in which she originally requested an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board, along with the three letters of recommendation from her chain of command.





5.  Army Regulation (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction) provides policy guidance on the Enlisted Standby Advisory Board.  It states, in pertinent part, that reconsideration normally will be granted when an annual or change of rater NCOER that was received at Human Resources Command, St. Louis Evaluation Reports Division early enough for processing and filing in the Promotion Consideration File before the convening date of the Promotion Selection Board, was not reviewed.  It also states, in pertinent part, that the absence of documents written, prepared, or computed following the convene date of the board does not constitute a material error, and reconsideration will not be granted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her military records should appear before an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board for the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Promotion Boards.

2.  The applicant’s contention that her military records should appear before an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board for the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Promotion Boards was noted.  However, as her NCOER with an ending period of May 2003 was not received by the Human Resources Command, St. Louis Evaluation Reports Division until 15 March 2005, which was well after the convening dates of the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Promotion Selection Boards, there is no basis for having her military records appear before an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board for the 2003 and 2004 Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major Promotion Boards.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JR____  ___DH __  __RG ___  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.





____ Jeffrey Redmann_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012395
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070208
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES         1.
131.1100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.