MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037873

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  Advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have been retired in the pay grade of E-6, the highest grade he held while on active duty.  He further states that at the time he was reduced to the pay grade of E-5, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) because he was informed that he was under investigation that could result in trial by court-martial and possibly a dishonorable discharge.  He also states that the only thing he did wrong was to remain in Vietnam for 2 years and 4 months.

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

The applicant enlisted on 3 March 1948 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was transferred to Vietnam on 23 September 1965 for duty as a cook and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 10 September 1966.

On 18 January 1967, NJP was imposed against him for being intoxicated and incapacitated while on duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 6 May 1967, NJP was imposed against him for being incapacitated due to over indulgence in alcohol and for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and a reduction to the pay grade of  E-5 (suspended for 60 days).

On 27 October 1967, NJP was imposed against him for being under the influence of alcohol while on duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-5.

The applicant departed Vietnam on 12 March 1968 and was transferred to Oakland, California where he was honorably released from active duty on 31 March 1968.  He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of E-5, effective 1 April 1968, after having served 20 years and 8 days of total active service.

On 10 January 1978, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) reviewed the applicant’s records and determined that he had been convicted by two summary court-martials before being promoted to the pay grade of E-6 and that NJP had been imposed against him on three occasions within 1 year of his promotion to the pay grade of E-6.  The AGDRB determined that his service in the pay grade of E-6 was not satisfactory and voted to deny him advancement on the Retired List.

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 completing 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 Board finds, as did the AGDRB, that the applicant’s service in the pay grade of E-6 for the year that he held that grade was not satisfactory service that is sufficient to warrant advancement on the Retired List. 

3.  The applicant received NJP on three occasions after his promotion to the pay grade of E-6 and despite being given a suspended reduction after his second NJP, he continued with his misconduct until he was reduced in grade.  Therefore, there is no basis to promote him to a higher grade or to advance him on the Retired List.

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

__gp____  ___mvt__  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037873	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/18	
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.