MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037122

	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. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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:  That he be retired in the pay grade of E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have been retired at the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served on active duty.  He further states that he held the pay grade of E-6 for 12 years before he was reduced to the pay grade of E-5 for personal matters that had nothing do with his performance of duty in the military.

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

He enlisted in Indianapolis, Indiana on 24 July 1978 for a period of 4 years, training as a field artillery cannon crewmember and a cash enlistment bonus.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 21 January 1984 

On 24 July 1996 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for one specification of assaulting his wife, one specification of communicating a threat to his wife, one specification of indecent exposure and one specification of using indecent language to a female who was not his wife.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-5, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty for 45 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 31 October 1996 he was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12 and the Voluntary Early Retirement Program.  He was placed on the Retired list in the pay grade of E-5 effective 1 November 1996.  He had served 18 years, 3 months, and 6 days of total active service.

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 30 years of service.  This service may consist of combined active service and service in the USAR Control Group (Retired) and the Army Grade Determination Board is the agency that reviews the records and/or applications for advancement on the Retired list in behalf of the Secretary, for those who have attained 30 years of service.

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 that requirement.

2.  In order to be advanced to a higher grade on the Retired list, the applicant must have at some time been advanced to a higher grade prior to his being placed on the Retired list and must have a combined total of 30 years of service (active and/or service on the Retired list).  The applicant has not yet attained 30 years of qualifying service to be eligible for review by the Army Grade Determination Board for advancement to the highest grade he satisfactorily held. Therefore, there is no basis to advance him on the Retired list to a grade higher than the grade of E-5 until such time as he has attained the qualifying years of service required by law. 

3.  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

___ja ___  __ewl___  __vbc ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037122	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	NA	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	NA	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NA	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  306	129.0400/HI GRD HELD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.