PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036772

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show that his retired pay is computed based on the retired pay of Master Sergeant (E-8) instead of Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).  

3.  The applicant states that he received verification indicating that he would be retired in the pay grade of CW2; however, he desires to be retired in the pay grade of E-8, a grade he satisfactorily served in and which pays a higher rate of retired pay.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was promoted to the pay grade of CW2 on 17 November 1972 and was granted Federal recognition on 31 December 1972.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 in the South Dakota Army National Guard on 21 February 1984 and served in that rank until 23 July 1989, when he accepted a voluntary reduction to the pay grade of E-7.

5.  The applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of CW2 on 23 November 1999.

6.  Title 10, United States Code, provides, in effect, that a person entitled to retire, shall have their retired pay computed on the monthly basic pay of the highest grade satisfactorily held at anytime.  However, 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 the highest amount of retired pay.

2.  The determination that the highest grade satisfactorily held by the applicant was CW2 is correct; however, it is unjust in that it has deprived him, and will continue to deprive him, of the increased pay which he would have received if his retired pay had been computed in the pay grade of E-8.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the highest grade satisfactorily held by the individual concerned was CW2, and that he was placed on the Retired list in that pay grade effective 23 November 1999, with his retired pay to be computed at the pay grade of E-8 and entitlement to any back pay and allowances that result therein.

BOARD VOTE:  

___esc__  __jps____  __mkp __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Margaret K. Patterson___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036772	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  306	129.0400/HI GRADE FOR PAY	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.