IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021292 


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, in effect, correction of his record to show he was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7.

2.  He states he was not selected for promotion to SFC/E-7, although his duty positions from 1986 through the balance of his career were E-7 or E-8 positions.  When he attempted to determine why his peers were being promoted and he was not, he went to Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN, for a records review and found many items were incorrect in his files.  He made all the corrections possible, but never found out why he was not selected for promotion.  He heard there may have been a "closed folder," but he has no way of knowing.  

3.  He lists several duty positions he held that he states were senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) positions.  He earned commendations, awards, and other recognition, but he was never selected to hold the pay grade he was performing the duties of.  He was selected for early attendance at the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC).  He was told he had been selected for promotion, but no promotion orders were published.  He was later informed another Soldier was promoted who had a similar name and the same last four numbers as the last four numbers of his social security number.  

4.  He states that when he went to review his records, there was another record there which did not have a name but was marked for review.  When he asked about it, the clerk took it away and said it was a mistake.  He wonders if it was a "closed records jacket" and if there was something in it that affected his promotion.  He now wishes to know if he was selected, if he was removed from the promotion list and why, and to have a correction made.  

5.  He provides:

* DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)
* Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement
* letter, dated 31 March 1988, from the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Riley, KS
* Certificates of Achievement
* memoranda, dated 25 April 1988, from the CG, Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, KY
* letter of appreciation, dated 28 April 1988, from the Chief, M1 New Equipment Training and Transition (NETT), Team C, Fort Riley, KS
* memorandum, dated 16 May 1988, from the G-3/Director, Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, KY
* memorandum, dated 31 May 1988, from the Chief, New Equipment Training (NET) Division, G-3/Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, KY
* DA Form 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report)  
* memoranda concerning his request for voluntary retirement
* DA Form 2339 (Application for Voluntary Retirement)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 November 1977.  His record shows he held armor and signal support military occupational specialties (MOS) during his career.

3.  On 29 October 1985, the U.S. Army Regional Personnel Center Fulda (Germany) issued Orders 246-15 promoting him to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 effective 10 October 1985.  

4.  On 16 October 1987, he completed the Basic NCO Course.  On 14 July 1989, he completed ANCOC.

5.  On 30 November 1997, he retired in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 after completing 20 years and 1 day of net active service.

6.  His record is void of documentation showing he was selected for promotion to SFC/E-7.  

7.  His Army Military Human Resource Record (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File) in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System does not contain a restricted folder.

8.  He provides the following documents commending him for his performance as an instructor with the Doctrine and Tactical Training Cell, M1 Tank NETT:  

* letter, dated 31 March 1988, from the CG, Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Riley, KS
* Certificate of Achievement, dated 18 April 1988
* memorandum, subject:  Commendation, dated 25 April 1988, from the CG, Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, KY, commending for his work with the NETT
* letter of appreciation, dated 28 April 1988, from the Chief, M1 NETT, Team C, Fort Riley, KS
* memorandum, dated 16 May 1988, from the G-3/Director, Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, KY
* memorandum, dated 31 May 1988, from the Chief, New Equipment Training (NET) Division, G-3/Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, KY

9.  He also provides:

* a DA Form 1059 showing he completed the M1/M1A1 Abrams Master Gunner Course on 19 December 1988
* a Certificate of Achievement, dated 10 December 1990, given to him in appreciation for his outstanding support in executing M1A1 Rollover Training for the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) from 30 November through 11 December 1990
* a DA Form 2166-7 covering the period May 1990 through February 1991 showing he received a rating of "among the best" from his rater and the highest possible ratings from his senior rater

10.  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 centralized promotions to SFC.  

	a.  Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) promotes Soldiers to the rank of SFC.  A centralized promotion system has been in effect for promotion of enlisted Soldiers to SFC since 1 June 1970.  Criteria for primary and secondary zones of consideration for each grade are announced by HQDA before each board. 

	b.  Selections by DA boards will be based on impartial consideration of all eligible Soldiers in the announced zone.  Selections will be made by MOS.

	c.  Boards will select the best qualified in each MOS for promotion.  They will recommend a specified number of Soldiers by MOS from zones of consideration who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.  The total number selected in each MOS is the projected number the Army needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength at any given time.

	d.  Soldiers who are not selected for promotion will not be provided specific reasons for nonselection.  Board members may not record their reasons or give reasons for selection or nonselection.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he was promoted to SFC/E-7.  

2.  There is no evidence showing he was selected for promotion to SFC/E-7, and there is no evidence indicating he was improperly overlooked for consideration for promotion to SFC/E-7.  He states he served in positions requiring a higher grade; however, this is not a basis for promotion and it does not indicate error in his nonselection for promotion.  

3.  The reasons for nonselection for promotion are neither recorded nor provided to the Soldier.  It must be presumed he was considered for promotion, but not found to be among those best qualified to meet the needs of the Army in his MOS.  
4.  The applicant should note that the total number of individuals selected for promotion is based on the projected number the Army needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength.  Nonselection for promotion to a senior NCO grade is not necessarily a reflection on an individual's performance.  The selection process is normally very competitive especially during a period of downsizing, and nonselection often only means the numbers needed in a particular MOS precluded promoting otherwise highly-qualified Soldiers.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting 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 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)                                         AR20120021292





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021292



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1