MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036884

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant major/E-9 (SGM/E-9).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the degree of responsibility placed on him during his last six years of service qualifies him for consideration for advancement on the Retired List.  He claims that it is his belief that had he completed a 30 year career he would have been promoted to the rank of SGM. However, because of the failing health of his parents he retired with 27 and 
½ years of service.  He indicates that the reason for his non-selection for promotion during his last 6 years of service was his inability to obtain an adequate score on the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) evaluation test.  This he states was based on his historical difficulty in taking any written examination and in fact sought medical treatment for the problem with no results. He contends that throughout his career all commanders rated his performance as excellent and states that he received numerous letters of appreciation, achievement, and commendation and these documents support his case for promotion.  The applicant explains that he has continued to support the Army in the civilian community to this day.  He goes on to indicate that his support of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Course (JROTC), as a school board member, contributed to JROTC programs being placed in two local high schools. He also comments that with the exception of the low PMOS evaluation test scores, his record of service was impeccable.  He concludes by stating that he is now 
70 years of age, and now that his time is running out, the approval of this promotion would certainly cap a wonderful Army career.  He provided the enclosed expanded statement and seven enclosures in support of his application.  

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

He initially entered the Regular Army on 28 July 1948.  He served on active duty a total of 27 years, 7 months, and 23 until he was honorably released from active duty for retirement, in the rank and pay grade of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8), on 31 May 1976.

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates in block 23 (appointments and reductions) that the applicant attained the rank of MSG on 27 November 1966.  There is no indication in the qualification record that he ever held a higher grade while serving on active duty. 

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 4 February 1976 and that he requested a retirement date of 31 May 1976.  On 11 February 1976, the appropriate authority approved his retirement request for 31 May 1976 in the rank of MSG. 

On 31 May 1976, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD).  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 
(Report of Separation From Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant.  This document shows that the applicant was separated, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 3914, by reason of retirement.  In addition, at the time of his REFRAD he held the rank of MSG and had completed a total of 27 years, 7 months, and 23 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 12 sets policies and procedures for voluntary retirement of soldiers because of length of service.  Paragraph 12-3b states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement as directed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961 (10 USC 3961).  

Paragraph 12-6 (Advancement on the Retired List) of the regulation contains guidance on the advancement of soldiers on the Retired List.  It indicates that advancement on the Retired List is limited to retired soldiers who held a higher grade and successfully served in that higher grade while on active duty.  There are no provisions for advancement of individuals who had not held a higher rank while serving on active duty if they were properly retired in the rank and pay grade they held on active duty on the date of their retirement.  

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.  The Board wishes to both thank and commend the applicant for both his outstanding military service and his continued support and service to the Army subsequent to his retirement.  However, even though these accomplishments are significant, they do not provide a basis for granting the requested relief. 

2.  The record clearly shows, even though the applicant had an outstanding career and his record was impeccable, that he never actually served above the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8.  The provisions of law and regulation only allow for advancement of soldiers on the Retired List when they have in fact satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher pay grade.  Given the applicant never served in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9, advancement on the Retired List to that grade is not appropriate. 

3.  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.

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

__mdm __  ___js ___  ___mw__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036884	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/05/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C12	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.