MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039551

	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:  That he be advanced to Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8 on the retired list.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was promoted to MSG on 31 July 1979 and served in that grade until he retired in April 1980.  He provides a Senior Enlisted Evaluation Report (SEER) for the period ending April 1980 as supporting evidence.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 April 1960.  

On 1 August 1979, the applicant was promoted to MSG with a date of rank of    31 July 1979.  As he noted on his application for retirement, he submitted paperwork declining promotion on 13 August 1979.  On 24 August 1979, Orders 237-1, U. S. Army Military Personnel Center revoked his promotion.  The applicant’s DA Forms 2 and DA Form 2-1, Personnel Qualification Record parts I and II both show that an entry of MSG had been entered and then deleted.

On 24 January 1980, the applicant completed DA Form 2339, Application for Voluntary Retirement.  On the form he listed his current grade as Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 and the highest grade he served on active duty as SFC, E-7.

The applicant’s retirement orders dated 12 February 1980 placed him on the retired list effective 30 April 1980 in retired grade SFC, E-7.

The applicant’s SEER for the period ending April 1980 shows his grade in part IA as MSG; however, parts IE and IG show him holding primary and secondary military occupational specialties with skill level 4 (an E-7’s skill level; an E-8 would hold a skill level of 5).  

On 11 April 2000, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service verified that their records show the applicant was being paid as an E-7 as of April 1980.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 12 provides that retired soldiers, when their active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, are entitled to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily.  When these soldiers complete 30 years of service, their military personnel records are reviewed to determine whether service in the higher grade was satisfactory.

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.  Notwithstanding the SEER the applicant has provided (which contains some information that is not compatible with his having a rank of MSG), the overwhelming evidence of record shows that he declined his promotion to MSG and did not serve as a MSG.

2.  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

__wtm___  __ra____  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039551	
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.