MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039892

	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		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		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, promotion to the pay grade of E-8 and advancement on the Retired List in that grade.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have been promoted to the pay grade of E-8 because he was the first sergeant of the 87th Engineer Company from its inception and was told that he would be promoted to the pay grade of   E-8 before the unit deployed; however, prior to deployment a new first sergeant was sent in to take the position.  In support of his application he submits documents showing that while assigned to Germany, he was placed on the E-8 promotion standing list for promotion to the pay grade of E-8. 

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

He was inducted on 14 December 1942 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 16 February 1962.

The applicant was assigned to the 87th Engineer Company at Fort Benning, Georgia on 2 July 1966 and deployed with that unit to Vietnam on 23 November 1966.  His record of assignments show that he was assigned as a platoon sergeant.  A review of his records fails to show that he was ever actually promoted to the pay grade of E-8.

On 11 May 1967, he submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) in which he requested retirement for length of service to be effective 31 July 1968.

On 31 July 1968, he was released from active duty and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-7.  He had served 25 years, 9 months, and 23 days of total active service.

Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completing 30 years of service.  This service may consist of combined active service and service in the USAR Control Group (Retired).

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 this requirement.
2.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he was actually promoted to the pay grade of E-8, that he was unjustly denied promotion or that he satisfactorily served in that pay grade prior to being placed on the Retired List. Therefore, there is no basis to do so at this time.

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

___mm __  __tb____  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039892	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/ADV ON RET LIST	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.