MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038248

	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. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 had planned to retire when he reached 20 years of service and just 7 months prior to retirement eligibility was sent to Vietnam.  He goes on to state that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 16 November 1968 and when he called his wife to tell her the good news and inform her of his 2-year service obligation, she threatened divorce if he stayed.  Consequently, he contacted officials at his headquarters and was allowed to retire on 31 December 1968 in the pay grade of E-7.  Therefore, he desires to be retired in the highest grade he held.

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

He enlisted on 28 February 1948 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 11 June 1962 and was transferred to Vietnam on 2 December 1967.

On 29 October 1968 he submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) in which he requested retirement by reason of length of service to be effective 1 January 1969.  His request was approved on 26 November 1968.

However, on 16 November 1968 orders were published which promoted the applicant to the pay grade of E-8.  The orders specified that acceptance of the promotion incurred a 2-year service remaining obligation and that individuals not wishing to accept the 2-year service obligation must decline the promotion upon receipt of orders.

On 31 December 1968 the applicant was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of E-7 effective 1 January 1969.  He had served 20 years, 10 months, and 4 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 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.  Furthermore, given the circumstances outlined by the applicant, the evidence of record, and the fact the he retired the month following publication of promotion orders, it is reasonable to presume that the applicant elected to decline the promotion, to serve the 2-year service remaining obligation, and instead to elect retirement.  Accordingly, his promotion orders were properly revoked; an action which negated his promotion to the pay grade of E-8.  Therefore, the Board finds that he did not satisfactorily serve in the pay grade of E-8.

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

___ja ___  ___mm__  __jlp ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038248	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/13	
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.