MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            22 October 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09452

	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.	Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Ms.	Shirley L. Powell		Member	

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

	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 promotion to the pay grade of E-6 be antedated to March 1974.

APPLICANT STATES:  That in March 1974 he was picked up as being AWOL, which was untrue.  He further states that he was supposed to have been promoted to the pay grade of E-6 in March 1974 but was not because of the AWOL incident.

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

The applicant was inducted on 24 March 1966 and he remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 12 April 1968 and was reduced to the pay grade of E-4 on 20 September 1968.  He was again promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 14 May 1970 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 13 February 1975.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) in August 1979.  He appealed the bar to reenlistment and his appeal was approved.  As part of the approval action by the Department, the applicant was informed that removal of the bar did not preclude future boards from imposing another bar should his record so warrant.

On 15 April 1981 the applicant was again barred from reenlistment under the QMP based on additional disciplinary actions which had occurred since his last bar to reenlistment.  He again appealed the bar to reenlistment and his appeal was denied.

On 27 September 1982 he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-6 at his scheduled expiration of term of service (ETS) and was issued a reentry code of RE-4.  He had served 16 years, 4 months, and 4 days of total active service.

A review of the applicant’s records failed to reveal that the applicant was ever charged with an AWOL offense or that he was denied promotion to the pay grade of E-6 for any reason. 

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.  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 that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, the evidence of record fails to show that the applicant was charged with an AWOL offense or that he was unjustly denied a promotion.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and considering the passage of time, it must be presumed that the action’s taken by the Department at the time were appropriate. 

3.  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

__jh ____  __fkm___  __slp____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director