MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039033

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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, that he be reappointed as a warrant officer one, promoted to chief warrant officer two, chief warrant officer three, and chief warrant officer four and advanced on the retired list as a chief warrant officer four.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he decided to leave the Arizona National Guard, Captain H___, the assistant adjutant general, told him his warrant officer status would follow him.  He later learned Captain H___ had been fired for some reason; therefore, he believes Captain H___ told him a lie.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard, he was appointed a warrant officer in the Army National Guard on 14 February 1954.  He served on active duty for training for 15 days from 15 – 29 August 1954.  One document on his Official Military Personnel File shows that he was honorably discharged on 29 August 1954 due to resignation.  He enlisted in the Army National Guard on 20 August 1954.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 April 1955 and retired for length of service on 1 April 1978 in the rank and grade of sergeant major, E-9.

Title 10, U. S. Code, chapter 369 governs retired grades.  Section 1371 states that a warrant officer retires, in the permanent regular or reserve warrant officer grade, if any, that he held on the day before the date of his retirement, or in any higher warrant officer grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary, for a period of more than 30 days.  Section 3964 provides that warrant officers and enlisted members may, when their active service plus their service on the retired list totals 30 years, be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily. 

Title 10, U. S. Code, section 101(d) defines “active duty” to mean full-time duty in the active military service of the United States.  Such term includes full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school.

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.  The available evidence of record shows the applicant resigned his appointment as a warrant officer one.  At this point in time, even had the applicant provided supporting evidence to show that Captain H____ “lied” to him, it would be purely speculative for the Board to presume that he would have retained his warrant officer status and gone on to be promoted to higher warrant officer grades.

3.  The Board does not doubt that the applicant’s exemplary service contributed to the successful mission accomplishment of any duty he was assigned.  However, the evidence of record shows that he served on active duty as a warrant officer one for only 15 days.  This does not satisfy the requirement that a warrant officer must hold the rank for a period of more than 30 days on active duty in order to be advanced 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

__rvo___  __jhk___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039033	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000503	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	136.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.