MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037685

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 advanced on the Retired list to the pay grade of E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served in the pay grade of E-6 while on active duty but was retired in the pay grade of E-5.

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

He was inducted on 10 September 1945 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 24 May 1966.

On 17 June 1966, approximately 24 days after his promotion, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for conspiring to defraud the government and for receiving monies as the result of his act.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-5.

He continued to serve until he was honorably retired for length of service on 31 August 1967.  He was placed on the Retired list in the pay grade of E-5 effective 1 September 1967 after having served 21 years, 10 months, and 23 days of total active service. 

On 14 December 1987 the Army Grade Determination Board (AGDB) reviewed his records for possible advancement on the Retired list to the pay grade of E-6 and determined that he was not eligible for advancement.  He was notified in writing of the decision on 19 January 1988.

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, must have satisfactorily served in that grade, and must have a combined total of 30 years of service (active and/or service on the Retired list).  The Board finds that although the applicant was advanced to the pay grade of E-6 and has a total of 30 years of combined service, he served in that grade for only 24 days before being reduced for misconduct.  Accordingly, he did not satisfactorily serve in that grade.

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

__mkp __  ___esc__  ___jps___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037685	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  306	129.0400/HI GRD HELD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.