MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039369

	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. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 advanced to Staff Sergeant (SSG) , E-6 on the retired list.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he feels he served satisfactorily in the grade of E-6. He provides no supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 10 August 1971.  He was promoted to SSG, E-6 on 11 April 1979.

The applicant’s Senior Enlisted Evaluation Report (SEER) for the period ending December 1979 shows he received a numerical rating of 113 (out of a maximum 125).  His SEER for the period ending December 1980 shows he received a numerical rating of 105.  His SEER for the period ending May 1981 shows he received a numerical rating of 103.  

On 6 May 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for not properly registering a privately-owned rifle and .45 caliber handgun.  His punishment was a reduction to Sergeant (SGT), E-5, suspended for 6 months and a forfeiture of $200.00 pay for 1 month, suspended for 6 months.  On 28 August 1981, the suspension of the punishment of a reduction to SGT was vacated and he was reduced to SGT with a date of rank of 6 May 1981.

On 1 June 1987, the applicant retired in the rank and grade of SGT, 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 caused by nonjudicial punishment pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ.  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.

On 8 March 2000, the AGDRB determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of E-6 because of the nonjudicial punishment actions he received while serving in that grade.

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 approximately 25 months in grade E-6 prior to receiving the Article 15 for which he received a suspended reduction.  He then served an additional 3 months before that suspended reduction was vacated.  His SEERs for the period he was a SSG show that he was an average to below average soldier.  The Board concludes that his service in grade E-6 was neither so exemplary nor so lengthy as to warrant the Board overturning the AGDRB’s determination and 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

__sk____  __kak___  __clg___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039369	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000039369	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	136.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.