2.  The applicant requests correction of his military records to show his retired pay computed on the grade of Master Sergeant (E-8) instead of Chief Warrant Officer Two (W-2).

3.  The applicant states that having to retire at the highest rank causes a substantial reduction in retired pay.

4.  On 5 March 1980 he was issued a notification of eligibility to receive retired pay at age 60,  He was born on 31 March 1939 and reached age 60 on 31 March 1999.

5.  The applicant served in the Reserve and National Guard for 33 years, 
7 months and 22 days.  He was separated from the Nebraska National Guard effective 31 May 1992 and transferred to the Reserve Control Group (Retired) effective 1 June 1992.

6.  He was placed on the Army of the United States Retired List (AUS) effective 
1 June 1992 in pay grade W-2, his highest grade satisfactorily held.

7.  The retired pay of an E-8 is higher than that of a W-2 with the same amount of service.

8.  Title 10, United States Code, provides that a person entitled to retire, under section 1331 of that title, shall have his retired pay computed on the monthly basic pay of the highest grade satisfactorily held at any time.  However, under section 1401 of the same statute, if entitled to retired pay computed under more than one pay formula or under any other provision of law, he is entitled to be paid under the applicable formula that is most favorable to him.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In providing that an individual be retired in the highest grade satisfactorily held, Congress clearly intended to provide for the highest amount of retired pay.

2.  In providing that he should receive retired pay based on the pay grade most favorable to him, it is not intended that he must forfeit those other rights and privileges vested in or enjoyed by commissioned or warrant officers.

3.  The highest grade satisfactorily held by the applicant is unjust in that it has deprived him, and will continue to deprive him, of the increased pay which he would have received if he had been retired in pay grade E-8.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that notwithstanding his placement on the AUS retired list in the rank and pay grade of Chief Warrant Officer Two (W-2), as provided by title 10, United States Code, sections 1331-1337, the retired pay of the individual concerned will be calculated on the pay grade of Master Sergeant , E-8, a grade in which he also satisfactorily served, and the formula most favorable to him, as provided by title 10, United States Code, section 1401.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC1999020988	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.