MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036785

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 promoted to the pay grade of E-7 and advanced on the Retired list in that grade.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-7 for a variety of reasons and should be promoted to that pay grade at this time and advanced on the Retired list.  In support of his application he submits an extensive array of documents (28 enclosures) to support his contentions that he was unjustly denied a promotion that he had earned.

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

He enlisted on 17 June 1948 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 28 October 1964.

On 8 January 1971, he submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement       (DA Form 2339) requesting retirement by reason of length of service, effective    1 July 1971.  He indicated at that time that the highest grade he held while on active duty was the pay grade of E-6.  His application was approved on 16 March 1971.

Accordingly, he was honorably released from active duty on 30 June 1971 and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 July 1971.  He had served 23 years and 14 days of total active service.

A review of the documents submitted by the applicant reveals copies of awards he received, schools he attended, and recommendations for promotion to the pay grade of E-7.  He also submits a copy of a letter he submitted to his commander at the time (May 1969) contending that he should have been integrated onto the promotion standing list upon his assignment to the unit and subsequently promoted.

A review of documents contained in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) shows that he appeared before a promotion board in October 1969 and was not recommended for promotion by the selection board.  His records also contain recommendations for promotion which pre-date October 1969; however, there is no indication as to whether he was in fact recommended for promotion by the selection board.  However, there is extensive documentation to indicate that his promotion status was reviewed by Department officials on more than one occasion.

Title 10, United States Code, provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completion of 30 years of service.  This service may consist of combined active service and service in the USAR Control Group (Retired).

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.  In order to be advanced to a higher grade on the Retired list, the applicant must have at some time been properly advanced to and satisfactorily served in a higher grade prior to his being placed on the Retired list.  The applicant has not submitted evidence with his application, and the evidence of record does not contain any evidence to show that he was properly promoted to a higher grade than he held at the time of retirement.  Therefore, there is no basis to promote him to a higher grade or to advance him on the Retired list.

3.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant was not promoted to the pay grade of E-7 while on active duty, the passage of time as well as the lack of sufficient evidence to show that he was unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-7 make it difficult at best for the Board to determine why the applicant was not promoted to the next higher grade.  Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the actions taken by the Department in his case were in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.

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

__wtm___  __mdm__  __clg ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036785	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/ADV ON RET LIST	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.