MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           30 December 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-05250

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Theodore Heartley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward 		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his DD Form 214, separation document, be corrected to show that he separated from active duty in the rank of sergeant 
(E-5) instead of specialist five (E-5).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was promoted to sergeant while in Vietnam, however, he does not know what happened to the promotion orders.

The applicant submitted a copy of a letter addressed to his mother from his unit commander in support of his request.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted on 13 March 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his initial training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and on 31 July 1967, he was assigned to duties as a construction machine operator at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Other assignments include Germany and Vietnam.

A summary of his promotions and dates of rank are as follows; private (E-2), 13 July 1967; private first class (E-3), 11 November 1967; specialist four (E-4), 20 February 1968; and specialist five (E-5), 13 March 1969.

The applicant submitted a letter dated 20 September 1969, addressed to his mother from his unit commander, stating, in effect and in pertinent part, that his rank was converted from specialist five to sergeant and that he was performing duties as acting platoon sergeant in an exemplary manner.

There is nothing contained in his records showing his temporary appointment or promotion to sergeant (E-5).

His DD form 214 indicates that on 10 January 1970, he was released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  He had completed 2 years, 7 months and 28 days of active federal service with no lost time.  His service was characterized as honorable and his rank was specialist five, E-5.

Army Regulation 600-200 pertains to the enlisted personnel management system.  Paragraph 7-10 states, in effect and in pertinent part, that a commander may appoint qualified individuals as acting corporals, E-4, or acting sergeants,
E-5, to serve in existing position vacancies including those resulting from the temporary absence of the assigned non commissioned officers (NCO).  However, acting NCOs are not entitled to pay and allowances for such higher grades and service will not be credited as time in a higher grade for promotion or date of rank purposes.  The regulation further states that temporary appointments will terminate upon reassignment.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his DD Form 214 is erroneous lacks merit when the evidence of record is considered.

2.  On the date of his separation, he held the rank of specialist five, E-5, even though he may have been previously converted and performed duties in the rank of sergeant, E-5. Nothing in his records indicate that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, E-5.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 correctly shows his rank as specialist five, E-5.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence which would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.