BOARD DATE:	  7 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007023 


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 promotion to the rank of sergeant first class (SFC)/
E-7.  

2.  The applicant states:

* he was subjected to the reduction in force program and reverted to his enlisted or warrant status 
* he worked hard to get promoted; he loved and still loves being a Soldier in the Army; he is still involved in guiding and counseling the young
* he had five uncles who served during World War II and he was impressed with the uniform and very motivated to enlist after high school
* he served in many places and made many friends over the years; he received multiple awards and decorations, and completed jump school
* he served in Vietnam and his conduct and efficiency ratings were good; his record of promotion shows he was generally a good Soldier
* he faced racial discrimination, which impaired his ability to serve 

3.  The applicant provides:

* Front page of DA Form 2166-6 (Enlisted Evaluation Report) for the rating period December 1985 through November 1986
* Standard Form 46 (U.S. Government Motor Vehicle Operator's Identification Card)
* Photographs of artillery equipment
* Photographs of certificates and wall frames
* Congressional correspondence

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 enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 27 February 1968 and he held military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).  He served in Vietnam from March 1969 to March 1970.  He was honorably discharged on 25 May 1970 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. 

3.  He reenlisted in the RA on 26 May 1970.  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside and/or overseas assignments as indicated below.  He was advanced to sergeant/E-5 in January 1976 and to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 13 January 1980.

4.  In April 1987, he submitted a request for voluntary retirement and on 28 April 1987, Headquarters, I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA, published Orders 83-500 announcing his retirement in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6, effective 29 February 1988. 

5.  He retired on 29 February 1988 and he was placed on the retired list in his retired rank/grade of SSG/E-6 on 1 March 1988.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows his rank/grade as SSG/E-6 and that he completed 20 years and 3 days of active service.  It also shows he was awarded or authorized the:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Army God Conduct Medal (6th Award)
* Overseas Service Ribbon (3rd Award)
* Army Commendation Medal (3rd Oak Leaf Cluster)
* Army Achievement Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* 2 Overseas Service Bars
* Driver and Mechanic Badge
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)

6.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record (PQR)) shows in:

	a.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) the highest rank/grade that he held was SSG/E-6.  

	b.  Item 27 (Remarks) that a copy of his PQR was forwarded to the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center for the E-7 Promotion Selection Board on 19 July 1984. 

7.  There are no official orders or any other evidence available showing the applicant was promoted to the rank of SFC/E-7.

8.  He provides:

	a.  Photographs of artillery equipment and certificates and wall frames showing his multiple awards and decorations. 

	b.  Standard Form 46 showing his qualification in multiple government vehicles. 

	c.  The front page of DA Form 2166-6 for the rating period December 1985 through November 1986.  This evaluation report shows he performed the duties of Food Service Sergeant, MOS 94B, skill level 3 (SSG), for a separate company supporting 150 to 175 Soldiers.  His Rater rated his Professional Competence as 50 out of 50 and his Professional Standards as 34 out of 35.  The Rater rated him positively with a commendable rating but indicated the applicant did not meet the height and weight standards and he was (at the time) enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program and making satisfactory progress. 

9.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7 of this regulation contained Army-wide promotion policy and procedures.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the promotion of enlisted personnel to grade E-5 through E-9, appointments, grade reductions, and grade restoration were announced in orders.  Promotions to E-7, E-8, and E-8 were (and continue to be) centralized at the Department of the Army Level via annual promotion boards that select Soldiers for advancement to the next higher grade.  Promotion boards do not disclose the reason for non-selection.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served on active duty from 27 February 1968 to 29 February 1988.  He attained the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 and he held this rank/grade at the time of his retirement.  Therefore, he was appropriately placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SSG/E-6.  Additionally, his records were forwarded for consideration for promotion to SFC/E-7; but there is no evidence he was selected for promotion.  

2.  Each senior promotion board considers all NCOs eligible for promotion consideration, but it may only select a number within established selection constraints.  The selection process is an extremely competitive process based on 
the "best qualified Soldier" concept.  It is an unavoidable fact that some NCOs considered for promotion will not be selected.  There are always more outstanding NCOs who are fully qualified to perform duty at the next higher grade, who are not selected because of selection capability restrictions.

3.  It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to SFC/E7 while he was on active duty; however, it is a well-known fact that not everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are promotion allocations.  Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the time.  

4.  It is a well-known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection.  Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records that were considered by those boards that did not select the applicant it must be presumed that what the board did was correct.  Since promotion selection boards are not authorized by law to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection of any officer, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known. 

5.  A non-selected NCO can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his or her overall record, when compared with the records of contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion.  Since the applicant was not selected for promotion by a promotion board, he is not entitled to promotion.   


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)                                         AR20140007023



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007023



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1