MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039482

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Anderson		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 should be a “hard stripe” E-4.  In effect, he is requesting that his records be corrected to show that his promotion to pay grade E-4 should have been as a corporal rather than specialist four.

APPLICANT STATES: He submits no evidence or statement to support his request.

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

He enlisted on 20 January 1975 and was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B, combat engineer.  After training, he was assigned to Germany.  Although there are no promotion orders available in the applicant’s  military personnel file, his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows that he was promoted to specialist four (E-4) on 1 November 1976.

The applicant was separated with an honorable characterization of service on 
12 January 1977 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows his rank as specialist four.

Army Regulation 611-201, Military Occupational Classification and Structure, in effect at the time, provided standards of grade authorization for enlisted MOS.  The standards of grade authorization for MOS 12B did not authorize the rank of corporal at grade level E-4.

Army Regulation 600-200, Enlisted Personnel Management System, in effect at the time, provided for lateral appointment from specialist to noncommissioned officer (NCO) when standards of grade authorization were changed to delete provisions for specialist in the pay grade and MOS.  A soldier in pay grade E-4 could be laterally appointed from specialist to corporal even though his or her primary MOS did not allow the NCO rank at his or her current pay grade.  To have been eligible, the soldier must have been assigned against, and for at least 60 days, actually worked in an NCO position which is granted for his or her career progression MOS at a pay grade higher than that currently held.

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.  There is no evidence of record that the applicant was ever promoted to the rank of corporal.  His MOS of 12B, combat engineer, did not authorize the rank of corporal within its standards of grade authorization.

2.  There is also no evidence that the applicant ever served in an NCO position of higher grade which would allow a lateral appointment from specialist four to corporal as an exception to the standards of grade authorization.
3.  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 this requirement.

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

__jhl____  __clg____  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039482	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.