MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038267

	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:  Advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-8; however, due to extenuating circumstances at the time, he declined the promotion.  He desires to be advanced to the pay grade of E-8 on the Retired List at this time.

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

He enlisted on 3 August 1950 for a period of 3 years and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 8 September 1964. 

 He was transferred to Vietnam for his third tour on 18 May 1969 for duty as a Special Forces operations and intelligence specialist.  He departed Vietnam on 27 December 1969 on emergency leave and orders were published on 2 January 1970 which promoted the applicant to the pay grade of E-8. 

The applicant was attached to a unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 29 January 1970 for the purpose of requesting a compassionate reassignment to Fort Bragg.  His request was approved and he was assigned to Fort Bragg on 16 March 1970.

On 30 March 1970, while still serving in the pay grade of E-7, the applicant submitted a declination of promotion to the pay grade of E-8.  He cited in his request, in effect, that he was submitting his request outside of the 15-day window because of the fact that he had departed Vietnam when his orders were published and due to his pending compassionate reassignment request was late in receiving notice of his promotion.

On 31 March 1971 he was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of E-7.  He had served 20 years and 26 days of total active service and there is no indication in the available records to show that he ever served in the pay grade of E-8.

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 elected to decline the promotion, to serve the        2-year service remaining obligation, and instead to elect retirement, it appears that 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	AR2000038267	
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.