MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039224

	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:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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:  That he be advanced on the retired list to the grade of E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had been recommended for qualification to the next higher grade; that shows that he did serve satisfactorily as an E-6.

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 7 May 1947. He was promoted to the temporary rank of Sergeant First Class, E-6 on             27 November 1951.

An Information Sheet dated 9 September 1953 notes that the applicant was qualified for duty in grade E-7 in military occupational specialty 1602, cannoneer. It noted that his character was excellent and his efficiency was superior.

On 5 October 1953, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully possessing, on or about 22 September 1953, 4 ounces, more or less, of marijuana.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $55.00 for 6 months.

The applicant was allowed to reenlist.  He was promoted to the temporary grade of E-5 on 21 February 1959.  He was reduced to the grade of E-1 by sentence of general court-martial on 26 September 1961.  He was allowed to reenlist.  He was promoted to the temporary grade of E-5 on 8 August 1964.  On 1 September 1965, he was placed on the retired list in the grade and rank of Specialist Five,  E-5.  During his career he had earned the World War II Victory Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, the Drivers Badge “W” with Bar, a Letter of Commendation, one Army Good Conduct Medal, the Korea Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

On 22 October 1974, an Ad Hoc Review Board determined the applicant did not serve on active duty satisfactorily in the highest grade of Sergeant First Class,  E-6 and that he was eligible to be retained on the retired list in the grade of Specialist Five, E-5. 

Army Regulation 15-80 establishes policies, procedures and responsibilities of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB).  Paragraph 1.7 provides that, generally, service in a grade will not be considered to have been satisfactory when reversion to a lower grade was the result of the sentence of a court-martial.  Paragraph 1.8 states that the AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits and is allowed substantial discretion in reaching its decision.  Determination will be based on the soldier’s overall service in the grade in question.  Pertinent circumstances include the length of time in grade and the performance level.

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 applicant served less than 24 months in grade E-6 prior to the incident for which he was court-martialed.  Despite the Information Sheet comments, the Board concludes that his service in grade E-6 was neither so exemplary nor so lengthy as to warrant granting the relief requested.

3.  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

__eb____  __tap___  __klw___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039224	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000427	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	136.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.