IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        7 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080010662 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request that his rank be corrected from Sergeant First Class (SFC)/E-7 to First Sergeant (1SG)/E-8.

2.  The applicant states that he was assigned to the 39th Military Police Company, Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG) on 1 November 1983.  The applicant states that his company commander at the time promoted him to 1SG after the previous 1SG was not able to perform his duties.  He further states that the company clerk failed to document his promotion in his military records.

3.  The applicant provides two statements from his platoon leader and training sergeant in support of his application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060003438, on 28 September 2006.

2.  The applicant submitted two statements written in his behalf by his platoon leader and training sergeant, which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth procedures for processing requests for correction of military records.  Paragraph 2-15b governs requests for reconsideration.  This provision of the regulation allows an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within 
1 year of the ABCMR's original decision and it has not previously been reconsidered.  The Acting Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records waived this requirement.

4.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the LAARNG on 18 June 1955 and served his entire military career with the LAARNG.  He held several military occupational specialties (MOS’s) among them were MOS13F (Fire Support Specialist), MOS 95B (Military Policeman), and MOS 00E (Recruiter).  He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 18 February 1977 and SFC/E-7 on 
24 March 1981.  

5.  The applicant's records further show that he was assigned to the 39th Military Police Company and entered active duty in an Army Guard Reserve (AGR) status in November 1983.  

6.  The applicant's DA Forms 2166-6 (Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER)) with the periods ending October 1984 and August 1985, show his rank was SFC/E-7 and that he served in the position of platoon sergeant.

7.  On 31 August 1987, the applicant was honorably released from active duty.  Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and Item 4b (Pay Grade) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), show the entries of "SFC" and "E-7" respectively.  Item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) shows the entry "810324."

8.  On 1 October 1987, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired).  His National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated 1 October 1987, shows the entries of "SFC" in item 5a (Rank), "E-7" in item 5b (Pay Grade), and "810324" in item 6 (Date of Rank).  

9.  There are no special orders in the applicant's service personnel records promoting him to 1SG/E-8 while he was in the LAARNG.  

10.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) does not show the applicant was promoted to the rank of 1SG/E-8.  He reviewed this document on 31 August 1987.

11.  The applicant submitted two statements by former members of the 39th Military Police Company as follows:

	a.  the training sergeant states that he served with the unit from 1977 to 1978 and that he was nominated to the Soldier of the Quarter Board during that period. He further adds that the applicant, in his capacity as the 1SG, drove him to the interview for that award in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and drove him back after the board; and

	b.  the platoon leader states that he served with the 39th Military Police company as the 2nd platoon leader and then as the commanding officer and that during this period, the applicant was his unit 1SG.  

12.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, governed policy and criteria concerning promotion to pay grades E-5 through E-8 and the selection board process.  It stated that only board members will select Soldiers as "best qualified" for promotion and fully qualified Soldiers recommended by the immediate commander will be referred to the board.  The board would consist of both officers and enlisted appointed by the appropriate promotion authority to select individuals for promotion to pay grades E-7 through E-9.  A list of the individuals recommended by the board and selected by the promotion authority, in the order they were to be promoted, would be published.  Colonel/O-6 would be the promotion convening authority for E-7 and E-8. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The statements submitted by the applicant's former training sergeant and platoon leader were noted.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating for granting the requested relief.

2.  There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant did not provide any substantiating evidence that he was promoted to E-8 or that his commander recommended him for promotion to 1SG.  The applicant's evaluation reports for the period in question clearly indicate that he was a SFC/E-7, performing duties of a platoon sergeant.  Furthermore, his company commander was not an authorized promotion authority for promotion to E-8. 

3.  In the absence of military records which show the applicant was recommended and selected for promoted to 1SG/E-8 prior to his retirement from the LAARNG, there is an insufficient basis to change his rank in this case.  Therefore, the applicant’s rank of SFC, pay grade of E-7 as shown on his NGB Form 22 with the period ending 1 October 1987 appear to be correct.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__xxx___  __xxx___  __xxx___  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060003438, dated 28 September 2006.



															XXX
      _______ _   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010662



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010662



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1