MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040151

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 was unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of E-8 because the promotion selection boards did not take the time necessary to adequately review his records.  He further states that he met all of the requirements for promotion to the next higher grade and that he instead had to serve in the same grade for 11 years.

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

He enlisted on 1 May 1975 for a period of 3 years and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 26 September 1986.

On 30 April 1997 he was released from active duty and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-7 effective 1 May 1997.  He had served 22 years of total active service.

A review of his Official Military Personnel File shows that the applicant’s records were reviewed annually for promotion by the Department.  However, there is no indication which shows that he was ever selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-8.

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.  While the Board understands the applicant’s desire to be recognized for his work and to be promoted, the Board is not in a position to second guess the duly constituted promotion selection boards that reviewed his records along with those of his peers at the time and determined that he was not the best qualified for promotion.  Inasmuch as he has not submitted any evidence that an error or injustice has occurred in his case, there is no basis to advance him on the Retired List to a grade he never satisfactorily held. 

3.  The applicant’s contention that the promotion selection board’s did not take adequate time to review his records is not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  In fact, the same centralized promotion system was in effect at the time he was selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7.

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

___emw _  __rvo ___  __dh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040151	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/28	
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.