MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036619

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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:  In effect, that he be advanced to the rank of sergeant major/E-9 (SGM) on the retired list.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was selected for promotion prior to his retirement and during his retirement out-processing he should have been informed of this.  He claims that had he known he had been selected for promotion he would have withdrawn his retirement in order to accept the promotion.  

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

He entered the Regular Army on 11 April 1954 and continuously served on active duty for 26 years, 6 months, and 20 days until he was honorably released from active duty for retirement, in the rank of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG), on 
31 October 1980.  

On 11 June 1980, the applicant reviewed his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) and his Department of the Army (DA) Forms 2 and 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Records (PQR), at his supporting Military Personnel Office (MILPO). At this time he signed a statement attesting to the fact that he had reviewed the information in his PQR and that it was complete and correct.  This review is consistent with promotion review dates for members who were eligible to be considered for promotion to SGM by the selection board held in 1980.

The DA Form 2339 (Application for Voluntary Retirement) prepared by the applicant is on file in records.  This form verifies that the applicant submitted his request for retirement on 14 August 1980 and that he requested a retirement date of 31 October 1980.  On 15 August 1980, the appropriate authority approved his retirement request.

On 31 October 1980, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD).  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant.  This document shows that the applicant was separated, under the provisions of chapter 12, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of length of service retirement.  In addition, at the time of his REFRAD he held the rank of MSG and had completed a total of 26 years, 6 months, and 20 days of active military service.

A member of this Board’s staff contacted a member of the Promotions Branch at the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The purpose of this communication was to establish the timeline followed for the SGM selection process in 1980.  The PERSCOM message announcing the zones of consideration for promotion to SGM for that year was released to the field on 
9 May 1980; the SGM board convened on 3 September 1980; and it adjourned on 18 September 1980.  However, the results of this SGM selection board were not released until 10 November 1980.  

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.  After careful examination of the facts and the evidence in this case, the Board determined that no relief is not warranted in this case.  The Board determined that the applicant is neither entitled to retroactive promotion to SGM nor eligible for advancement to SGM on the Retired List.  

2.  The Board concluded with a degree of certainty that the applicant was aware that he was in the announced zones of consideration for promotion to SGM prior to his submitting his request for retirement.  This clearly gave him the option not to request voluntary retirement for length of service until the results of the selection board were known.

3.  Further, it is evident that the results of the 1980 SGM promotion list were not released until 10 November 1980, which was well after the applicant had completed retirement processing and in fact was after he had been REFRAD and placed on the Retired List.  Therefore, the Board found no merit in the applicant’s contention that he should have been advised that he had been selected for promotion during his retirement processing.

4.  The evidence of record clearly shows that on 11 June 1980, the applicant reviewed his record at the MILPO and completed a statement attesting to the fact that the information in his PQR was complete and correct on that date.  This date is well after the SGM zones of consideration were announced by PERSCOM and this information was readily available at all MILPOs in the Army.  In fact, the date he reviewed his PQR is consistent with when eligible members would have reviewed their records for submission to the SGM selection board.  Therefore, the Board has no choice but to conclude that the applicant reviewed his records on this date in order for his PQR to be submitted to the SGM selection board for consideration. 

4.  The record shows that the applicant’s voluntary request for retirement and its subsequent approval were accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.  In addition, there is no indication that he was specifically denied pertinent promotion information or options during his retirement processing.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the appropriate grade of MSG and advancement on that list is not warranted.

5.  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.

6.  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

__ewl ___  __klw ___  __eja ___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036619	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  338	136.0000	
2.  319	131.0900	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.