IN THE CASE OF:	  	

		BOARD DATE:	  7 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090013890 


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 consideration of his record by a standby advisory board (STAB) for promotion to master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 and sergeant major (SGM)/E-9.

2.  The applicant states that he had 12 years time in grade as a sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 and was not considered for further promotion to MSG/E-8 or SGM/E-9 prior to his retirement.  He was identified for reclassification from military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) to MOS 00J (Club Management) based on his records and disability which occurred while unloading ammunition.  He is not aware of the dates his records were considered by the MSG/E-8 promotion board.  He feels that while serving in MOS 11B, he was more qualified for promotion to MSG/E-8 and that being reclassified to MOS 00J also made him qualified for potential promotion to SGM/E-9. 

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty on 11 September 1957.  He was trained in and was awarded MOS 111.10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of specialist four/E-4 on 8 August 1959.

3.  The applicant's records also show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years on 28 December 1960 and was honorably discharged on 16 April 1963 in the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He then executed a 6-year reenlistment on 17 April 1963 and attained the permanent rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 23 June 1966 and the temporary rank/grade of SFC/E-7 on 7 May 1968.  He was honorably discharged on 16 April 1969.

4.  The applicant's records further show he reenlisted in the RA in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 on 17 April 1969 and executed a 2-year extension on 17 June 1971.  

5.  Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record (PQR)) shows he performed the following duties:

	a.  From 15 September 1969 to 7 April 1970, he served as an administrative supervisor in MOS 71L at Fort Polk, LA.

	b.  From 8 April 1970 to 11 December 1970, he served as an open mess manager in MOS 94B (Cook) at Fort Polk, LA.

	c.  From 9 July 1971 to retirement in 1980, he served in Vietnam, Germany, and other locations in MOS 00J and/or MOS 94B.

6.  On 11 March 1974, by memorandum, the Chief, Reclassification Branch, U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, VA, notified the applicant that reclassification into MOS 73C (Finance Specialist), 73D (Accounting Specialist), or 71G (Patient Administration Specialist) was not favorably considered and that in view of his assignments in open mess since 1970 and the critical shortage of senior noncommissioned officers (NCO) in that career field, reclassification of the applicant's MOS to 94B was directed.  He was subsequently issued orders awarding him primary MOS 00J and secondary MOS 94B.
7.  The applicant's records also show a copy of his PQR was forwarded to the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC), Indianapolis, IN, for consideration by the 1974, 1976, and 1977 Department of the Army (DA) promotion boards for promotion to MSG/E-8.  However, there is no indication that the applicant was selected for promotion.

8.  On 27 December 1978, the applicant executed a 3-year reenlistment in the RA.  He was assigned as a NCO Club Manager in Hanau, Germany.

9.  On 9 August 1979, a copy of the applicant's PQR was forwarded to USAEREC Indianapolis, IN, for consideration by the 1979 DA promotion board for promotion to MSG/E-8.  However, there is no indication that the applicant was selected for promotion.

10.  On 8 April 1980, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement.  His request was approved and he was ultimately retired on 31 May 1980 and placed on the retired list in his retired rank/grade of SFC/E-7 on 1 June 1980.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows his rank/grade as that of an SFC/E-7.

11.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, prescribed policies, responsibilities, and procedures pertaining to career management of Army enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7 contained Army-wide promotion policy and procedures.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the centralized promotion system was in effect for promotion of enlisted members to E-7, E-8, and E-9 since 1 March 1969 for E-8 and 1 January 1969 for E-9.  DA Selection Boards applied the whole person concept whereby an individual's qualification for promotion was judged by the entire record of accomplishments and failures.  No one item of information by itself was considered overriding in determining either the best qualified or those not qualified for promotion.  Best qualified was defined as an individual who was determined by a DA selection board to be best qualified among his/her contemporaries Army-wide, and who is not only qualified professionally but had demonstrated integrity and high moral standards.  

12.  Paragraph 7-36 of Army Regulation 600-200 stated that a standby advisory board (STAB) was established to consider records from the primary zone and secondary zone not reviewed by a regular board, records from a primary zone which were not properly constituted when reviewed by a regular board, and records of those recommended individuals on whom derogatory information had 

been developed which may have warranted removal from a recommended list.  If a member was selected by a STAB, the member was integrated by seniority sequence number into the appropriate recommended list.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant's PQR was submitted to USAEREC for consideration for promotion to MSG/E-8 at least on four different occasions and that he was not selected.  The applicant's lengthy time in grade is noted; however, at the time he was considered for promotion, no one item of information by itself was considered overriding in determining his selection or non-selection.  Additionally, promotion boards are not required to divulge the reasons for an individual's non-selection for promotion.  It is also recognized that the applicant was considered for promotion during a time when the Army was still drawing down its forces after Vietnam and before the buildup in the 1980’s.  Promotions were very highly competitive during that period.

2.  With respect to a STAB, there is no evidence in the available records and the applicant did not submit any evidence to warrant consideration of his records by a STAB.  The purpose of a STAB at the time was to consider records from the primary zone and secondary zone not reviewed by a regular board, records from a primary zone which were not properly constituted when reviewed by a regular board, and records of those recommended individuals on whom derogatory had been developed which may have warranted removal from a recommended list.  None of these conditions applies in the applicant's case.  Therefore, there is no reason to consider his records for promotion by a STAB in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x____  _____x___  ___x_____  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.




      _______ _   __x_____   ___
               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)                                         AR20090013890



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090013890



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1