IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  8 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022487 


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 previous request for correction of his records to show he was promoted to the grade and rank of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8.

2.  The applicant states the previous denial is enough to keep a Soldier in a depressed state, increases anxiety, increases loss of hope, and increases feelings of horror.  It is why Soldiers are killing themselves.

3.  The applicant provides:

* seven-page self-authored statement
* photocopies of pictures (presumably of the applicant)
* Certificate of Retirement
* letter from the Commanding General, 82nd Airborne Division (previously considered by the Board)
* Military Police Blotter Extract
* Letter of Appreciation
* Cold War Certificate of Recognition
* Certificate of Training
* three Letters of Commendation
* Certificate of Retirement
* excerpt of Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy)
* page 7 of a Department of Veterans Affairs document

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 AR20100025190 on 7 April 2011.

2.  The applicant provides a number of documents which were not previously considered by the Board.  Therefore, they are considered new evidence which warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  In the previous Record of Proceedings, it was noted that:

	a.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 February 1984.  He was promoted to the grade and rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 January 1993.

	b.  He submitted a general officer (GO) letter, dated 15 September 1997, signed by the Commanding General, 82nd Airborne Division, congratulating him on his selection for promotion to MSG.

	c.  The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC) published orders announcing his promotion to the grade and rank of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 effective 1 September 1998.

	d.  He was placed on the Retired List in the rank and grade of SFC/E-7 on 1 March 2008 after completing 24 years and 11 months of active service.  (Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Orders 219-1321, dated 7 August 2007, show 24 years and 21 days of service for retirement.)

	e.  There are no orders in his records that show he was promoted to MSG.

	f.  An advisory opinion was obtained from USAHRC stating that after extensive research, it determined there was no evidence to support the applicant's contention that he was selected for and ultimately denied promotion to MSG.  Further, the applicant did not provide any supporting evidence with his application to show he was promoted to MSG.

	g.  He submitted a rebuttal to the advisory opinion in which he stated he presented a promotion instrument signed by a general officer to support his promotion to E-8.  Additionally, the advisory opinion failed to address why there was a delay in his promotion and the Board should reject the advisory opinion and promote him to MSG.

4.  The previous Record of Proceedings concluded the evidence of record showed the applicant was promoted to SFC on 1 September 1998 and although the Commanding General, 82nd Airborne Division, issued him a congratulatory letter on 15 September 1997 and addressed him as an MSG, the letter incorrectly listed his rank.  He was still a SSG at the time and it appeared he could have been selected for promotion to SFC.  There was no evidence in his records and he failed to provide evidence that showed he was selected for or promoted to MSG/E-8.  Therefore, he was not entitled to the requested relief.

5.  He provided a self-authored statement in which he essentially describes certain events that took place throughout his military career, expresses his disagreement with the Board's prior determination, reiterates his contention that he was promoted to MSG based on the letter from the 82nd Airborne Division Commanding General and claims the advisory opinion obtained in the processing of his original application was biased.

6.  The additional documentation provided by the applicant does not show he was recommended for or promoted to MSG prior to his placement on the Retired List.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel.  Chapter 4 provides the rules and steps for managing the Centralized Promotion System to SFC, MSG, and sergeant major (SGM).  The Commander, USAHRC, promotes Soldiers to the grades of SFC, MSG, and SGM.  USAHRC will determine and announce the total number of promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM on a monthly basis.  The promotion certificate is not the official instrument for promotion.  The promotion instrument is the DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) for junior Soldiers and the orders for Soldiers in the ranks of SGT through SGM.  The promotion orders will be used as the source for grade, effective date, and date of rank for all record and pay purposes.  A promotion is effective as of the date on the promotion instrument.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to the rank and grade of MSG/E-8 has been carefully reviewed.

2.  He again contends he was promoted to MSG/E-8 based on the letter he received from the 82nd Airborne Division Commanding General; however, the evidence shows he was an SSG/E-6 at the time.  Therefore, it is obvious that an error was made in the preparation of the letter in that it congratulated him for his promotion to MSG/E-8 instead of promotion to SFC/E-7.  Additionally, USAHRC is the promotion authority for the ranks of SFC, MSG, and SGM, not the division commander.

3.  In the absence of promotion orders issued by USAHRC, the new documentation provided is insufficient evidence to correct his records to show he was promoted to MSG/E-8.

4.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to grant the requested relief.

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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100025190, dated 7 April 2011.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20110022487



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022487



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1