MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039953

	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. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 pay grade of E-8 on the Retired List.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 9 September 1981 and he now desires to be advanced to that pay grade.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his promotion orders and a letter of commendation he received indicating his pay grade as an E-8.

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

On 1 September 1981, while the applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-7 at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the Department of the Army published orders announcing the applicant’s promotion to the pay grade of E-8, effective 1 October 1981.  The orders specified that acceptance of the promotion incurred a 2-year service remaining obligation and that the authority for the promotion was Army Regulation 600-200.

On 29 October 1981 the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) in which he requested retirement by reason of length of service to be effective 1 June 1982.  He indicated at that time that the highest grade he held while on active duty was the pay grade of E-7.  He also acknowledged that his promotion to the pay grade of E-8 was effective 1 October 1981 and cited the orders announcing the promotion.

Meanwhile, on 14 October 1981, the applicant received a letter of commendation which addressed him as a Master Sergeant/E-8.

On 31 May 1982, he was released from active duty and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-7, effective 1 June 1982.  He had served 20 years, 4 months and 10 days of total active service.

A review of the applicant’s records fails to show that he was ever actually promoted or that the promotion was ever posted to his records.

Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided the authority for enlisted promotion.  It stated, in pertinent part, that personnel selected for promotion to the pay grades of E-7 through E-9 whose name is announced in DA orders have 30 days after the effective date of promotion to decline the promotion.  Otherwise, the promotion and all obligations associated with the promotion will be presumed to have been accepted.

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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant elected to decline the promotion to the pay grade of E-8 and the          2 years of service the promotion incurred, in order to retire for length of service.

3.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he was actually promoted 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.

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

___rks __  ___hof __  __jpi ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039953	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/19	
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.