RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000855


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 rank of
sergeant first class (SFC).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she was not considered for promotion
to SFC by the August 2005 Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)/DIMA promotion
board.  She claims she requested release from her United States Army
Reserve (USAR) unit to accept a two-year Contingency Operations-Extended
Active Duty (CO-EAD) tour.  On 2 March 2005, she was reassigned to the USAR
Control Group (Reinforcement) and was placed on a two-year tour, effective
28 March 2005.

3.  The applicant further states that her CO-EAD tour started on 29 March
2005 and at that time, she began to inquire about her eligibility for
promotion.  She states the confusion began initially when she was told that
due to her status code showing "1" (Active Army), she would have to compete
for promotion on the Active Army side.  She claims she explained to her
career managers that she was in fact an IRR Soldier on active duty.  She
states that no one knew for sure which promotion board she should be
considered by.  She claims to have been repeatedly told that due to her
status code of "1" she would not stand a chance because of her military
occupational specialty (MOS), nor would she be able to compete due to the
stringent active duty requirements.

4.  The applicant indicates that in December 2005, she began to document
electronic mail (e-mail) messages and written journals and continued her
quest through her chain of command and through Human Resources Command,
St. Louis, Missouri (HRC-St. Louis) promotion officials, and felt she was
at a dead end and was being given the run around.  She claims to have
continuously explained that she was an IRR Soldier and was only on active
duty orders.  Later she was told there was a possible plan in place being
considered to allow
CO-EAD Soldiers to be considered for promotion by the IRR/IMA promotion
board coming up in August 2005.  Lacking solid answers, she immediately
began to prepare to enroll in the next scheduled Noncommissioned Officer
Education System (NCOES) course (Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course
(BNCOC), Phase II), which started on 13 August 2005.

5.  The applicant states that she was concerned with meeting the deadline
to submit her Academic Evaluation Report (AER) and asked her
noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) and her officer in charge (OIC)
about submitting a waiver based on the fact the promotion board was due to
meet during the last week of her school.  She claims to have asked about
this several times, but was continually told a waiver would not be
accepted.  She claims to have completed the final phase of the BNCOC on 26
August 2005.
6.  The applicant states that after returning from BNCOC she was told she
would have to wait until the following year for the IRR/IMA promotion board
and that she would not have to compete on the active duty side at all.  She
then requested the matter be addressed at a higher level and requested to
meet with the Inspector General (IG) to file a complaint.  At this time,
her NCOIC suggested that prior to going to the IG, she might want to
consider meeting with the Plans Sergeant Major (SGM).  On 12 June 2006, she
met with this individual and was again informed she should have been
considered by the active duty board.

7.  The applicant summarizes that it was the lack of effort and lack of
follow through, coupled with being constantly run around for almost 2 years
that caused her to have been passed over for promotion by at least the 2005
IRR/IMA promotion board.  She indicates that she was finally advised in an
e-mail message on 21 June 2006 that she was not eligible for the active
duty promotion board in 2005; however, she still had never been officially
notified that she was not eligible for that board.

8.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application: Self-Authored Statement; E-Mail Messages; Personal Log; and
AER.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that she enlisted in the USAR on 14 July
1992.  She was initially trained in and awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator) and assigned to a Troop
Program Unit (TPU).  She later reenlisted and was awarded the secondary MOS
of 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

2.  The applicant's record shows she was promoted to the following ranks on
the dates indicated:  private/E-2 (PV2), 22 February 1993; private first
class/E-3 (PFC), 2 August 1996; specialist/E-4 (SPC), 6 July 1997;
sergeant/E-5 (SGT),
19 March 2002; and staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG), 20 November 2003.

3.  On 8 March 2005, Department of the Army (DA), Human Resources Command,
Alexandria, Virginia (HRC-Alexandria), ordered the applicant to active
duty, in the rank of SSG, for a 2-year period, effective 29 March 2005.
The purpose of the active duty was to fulfill active duty requirements in
accordance with the CO-EAD program.  She was assigned to HRC-St. Louis.

4.  On 26 August 2005, the applicant completed the MOS 88M BNCOC.

5.  On 28 March 2007, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
and returned to a USAR unit.  The separation document (DD Form 214) she was
issued shows she completed 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days of active duty
service during the period.

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from HRC-St. Louis promotion officials.  The opinion indicated
that EAD Soldiers were boarded for promotion by HRC-St. Louis during
Calendar Year (CY) 2003 and CY 2004, as an exception to policy, which was
granted by the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG).  This action
was required because these Soldiers were counted against Active Army
requirements.  OTJAG did not extend this exception for CY 2005, and even
had an exception for CY 2005 been granted, the applicant would still not
have been eligible for consideration because she had not completed the
NCOES requirement for promotion.  It further indicated that the applicant
was considered by the CY 2006 USAR IRR/IMA board, but was not selected for
promotion.  This official finally opines that no error or injustice
occurred in regard to the applicant's consideration for promotion to SFC.

7.  On 29 May 2007, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC-St. Louis
advisory opinion in order to have an opportunity to respond to or rebut its
contents.  To date, she has failed to reply.

8.  The applicant provides several e-mail messages, dated between
November 2005 and June 2006.  In these messages, she is communicating with
both active duty and USAR promotion officials trying to determine how and
when she would be considered for promotion.  These messages indicate she
was not eligible for promotion consideration in 2005 and she was advised to
prepare for the August 2006 IRR/IMA promotion board.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of
Army enlisted personnel.  It is applicable to enlisted members of the
Active Army, Army National Guard (ARNG), and USAR.  Paragraph 1-27 contains
guidance on the NCOES promotion requirements.  It states, in pertinent
part, that a Soldier must be a graduate of the BNCOC to be considered for
promotion to SFC.  Soldiers otherwise eligible for promotion consideration,
but lacking the prerequisite NCOES level as a direct result of operational
deployment conflicts, or the inability of the Army to schedule the course,
will be granted a waiver by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  In the case of
USAR Soldiers, this authority is delegated to
HRC-St. Louis.  Those Soldiers selected for promotion to SFC whose
eligibility resulted from a waiver of the requisite NCOES course will have
their promotion held in abeyance until the requisite NCOES course is
completed.

10.  Paragraph 6-13 of the enlisted promotions regulation contains guidance
on consideration by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB).  It states, in
pertinent part, that a member will be eligible for STAB consideration when
there is evidence that the member was not properly considered for promotion
or when there was a material error in the record reviewed by the regular
promotion selection board.  It further states that an error is material
when, in the judgment of a mature individual familiar with promotion
selection proceedings, a reasonable chance exists that had the error not
existed, the Soldier may have been selected.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that she should be promoted to SFC because
it was unclear what selection board should have considered her for
promotion was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was not eligible for
consideration for promotion to SFC until she completed BNCOC on 26 August
2005.  Absent any evidence that she failed to complete the course due to
operational deployment conflicts or the inability of the Army to schedule
the course, there is no apparent basis to support granting her a waiver of
this requisite BNCOC NCOES requirement to be eligible for consideration for
promotion to SFC.

3.  Further, the record shows that subsequent to her completion of BNCOC,
she was properly considered for promotion to SFC by the CY 2006 USAR
IRR/IMA selection board, but was not selected.  As a result, absent any
evidence of a material error in her record, there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis to support her reconsideration for promotion to SFC by a
STAB, or her promotion to SFC at this time.

4.  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

__JEA __  __LVB  __  __RDG__  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                 |AR20070000855                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/18                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.000                                 |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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