MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038034

	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-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should be advanced to the pay grade of E-7 because he was unjustly denied/passed over for promotion to that grade.

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

He served in the Air Force from 19 April 1972 to 16 April 1976 when he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-5.

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 October 1976 in the pay grade of E-4 for a period of 4 years, assignment to Europe, and training as a radio operator.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 18 September 1976.

His records also indicate that he was considered by a minimum of at least two promotion selection boards for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 and he was not selected by either of those boards.

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 contention that he was unjustly passed over for promotion is not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  Accordingly, the Board will not attempt to second-guess the promotion selection boards that reviewed his records at the time and had the advantage of comparing him to his peers and determining that he was not the best qualified for promotion at the time.

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	AR2000038034	
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 retired list	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.