MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040674

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 on the retired list to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he feels he served satisfactorily as a SSG.  He always conducted himself as a noncommissioned officer in a professional manner both on and off duty.  He met or exceeded the set standards.  Except for one mistake, where he returned late from an overnight pass and was reduced in rank, he never had any type of disciplinary or duty performance problems.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 June 1966.  

The applicant was promoted to Sergeant (SGT), E-5 on 28 May 1968.  He was reduced to Specialist Four on 13 November 1969 (no Article 15 for this reduction is available).  

On 12 March 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself from his place of duty.

On 11 August 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for dereliction in the performance of his duties.

On 1 April 1971, the applicant was promoted to SGT.  On 1 April 1972, he was reduced to Specialist Four (no Article 15 for this reduction is available).

On 1 May 1973, the applicant was promoted to SGT.  

On 26 November 1973, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for two counts of leaving his appointed place of duty without authority.

On 13 April 1974, the applicant was promoted to SSG.

On 19 May 1982, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for dishonorably failing to pay his debts to two subordinate soldiers.  His punishment was to be reduced to SGT.  He appealed the punishment and the reduction was suspended for 6 months.  The suspension was vacated on 8 July 1982.

On 5 October 1982, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for ration control violations.  

On 22 November 1983, the applicant was notified that he had been barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  He appealed the bar.  
On 14 February 1984, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting himself from his place of duty.

On 9 May 1985, the U. S. Army Military Personnel Center (USAMILPERCEN) disapproved the applicant’s appeal of his QMP bar to reenlistment.  USAMILPERCEN cited the applicant’s long history of disciplinary actions and below average enlisted evaluation reports (EERs).  Of the eleven EERs he received as an E-6, five were below average.  His performance since his reduction to E-5 in 1982 had been below average as an E-5 and well below average considering his eight prior years as an E-6.

On 1 July 1986, the applicant retired in the rank and grade of E-5.

Title 10, U. S. code, section 3964 provides that warrant officers and enlisted members may, when their active service plus their service on the retired list totals 30 years, be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily.

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 18 April 2000, the AGDRB determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of E-6 because of the nonjudicial punishment actions he received while serving in that grade.  The AGDRB also considered his history of previous nonjudicial actions prior to reaching E-6.  It determined that the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of retired pay was E-5.

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.  The applicant served approximately 8 years in grade E-6 prior to his reduction to E-5.  However, considering the information contained in USAMILPERCEN’s disapproval of his appeal to his QMP bar to reenlistment, the Board concludes that his service in grade E-6 was not so exemplary as to warrant the Board overturning the AGDRB’s determination and granting the 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__slp___  __lem___  __aao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX
CASE ID	AR2000040674	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000608	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	129.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.