MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038020

	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:  In effect, advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should be advanced on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-8  because he was serving in an E-8 position at the time he retired and because he was denied attendance at a personnel actions specialist course, denied an extension of service, and forced to retire.  He further states that he has subsequently obtained his bachelor of science degree in business administration and is now a certified corrections and probation officer.

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

He enlisted on 7 July 1960 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and extensions.  His records show that he was granted four extensions of service to meet the maximum retention eligibility point for his grade (24 years) and retirement.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 12 May 1981.

His records show that at the time of his retirement he was serving in an E-7, schools NCO position at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and he received an evaluation report in that position.  His records also show that prior to his assignment to Fort Bragg he had been relieved for cause from his duties in SHAPE, Belgium.  His records also indicate that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on at least six occasions during the timeframe of 1965 to 1982. 

On 30 September 1984 he was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of E-7 effective 1 October 1984.  He had served 24 years, 2 months, and 24 days of total active service.

A review of the applicant’s records failed to show that he was ever selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-8.  His records do show that he applied to the Enlisted Eligibility Activity (EEA) for authorization to reenlist for service in excess of his retention eligibility point for his grade.  His request was denied because his military occupational specialty was over strength at the time.

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 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.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  The applicant was retained in service for the maximum time allowed for his grade and therefore was eligible for either retirement or separation at the expiration of his term of service.  Had he been selected for promotion he would have been allowed to remain in service.  While the applicant is to be congratulated on his post-service accomplishments, they do not constitute a basis for advancement 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	AR2000038020	
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.