MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039509

	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. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 the rank of Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8 on the retired list.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his military record and performance of duty prior to his court-martial was admirable and spotless.  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 8 March 1971.  He was promoted to MSG on 19 August 1986.  He was laterally appointed to First Sergeant effective 15 June 1987.  On 13 February 1988, the incidents for which he was court-martialed occurred.  On 18 February 1988, he was laterally reappointed to MSG.

On 20 May 1988, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongful appropriation of a pistol and wrongful and willful discharge of a firearm under circumstances as to endanger human life.  He was sentenced to forfeit $860.00 for 6 months, suspended, and to be reduced to pay grade E-5.

On 1 August 1989, the applicant retired in the rank and grade of Sergeant, 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.

On 20 March 2000, the AGDRB determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of E-8 because of his special court-martial conviction.  It determined that the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of retired pay was E-7.

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 18 months in grade E-8 prior to the incidents for which he was court-martialed.  The Board concludes that his service in grade E-8 was neither so exemplary nor so lengthy as to warrant the Board overturning the AGDRB’s determination and granting the full 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.

NOTE:   The Army Review Boards Agency, Support Division will be directed to take the appropriate steps to implement the AGDRB’s decision.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wtm___  __ra____  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039509	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000420	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	136.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.