MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040787

	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. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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:  Advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was administratively reduced for misconduct and was never promoted back to the highest rank he held while on active duty before retirement.  He further states that he attempted to correct the error but received no assistance in the matter.  He goes on to state that he had an excellent record of service up to the event in question and served in the pay grade of E-7 for 7 years and was never counseled for any misconduct.  He accepted the reduction because he knew he was wrong and does not believe that he and his family should continue to suffer for one mistake.  In support of his application he submits copies of evaluation reports, his reduction order, and documents relating to his reduction proceedings.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records during the period of service in question were not available for review by the Board.  However, the documents provided by the applicant show:

The applicant was serving on active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program with the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) as a recruiter.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July 1991.

On 13 September 1998, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to reduce him (the applicant) one grade for inefficiency, based on inappropriate conduct in the performance of his duties, as evidenced by a commander’s inquiry.  The applicant indicated that he did not want to submit a rebuttal nor did he want to appear before a reduction board.  He also indicated that he would accept the reduction in grade.

On 8 October 1998 orders were published reducing the applicant to the pay grade of E-6 for inefficiency effective 13 September 1998.

On 31 July 1999 the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 August 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12 and the Voluntary Early Retirement Program.  He had served 15 years, 1 month and 18 days of total active service.

Title 10, United States Code, provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel will be retired in the grade they hold on the day before being placed on the Retired List and 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 and given the applicant’s admission that he accepted the reduction in grade because he was guilty of the misconduct in question, it must be presumed that the applicant was properly reduced in grade in accordance with the applicable regulations.  Accordingly, he was properly retired in the grade he held on the day before being placed on the Retired List.

3.  Inasmuch as advancement on the Retired List to the highest grade held while on active duty requires a total of 30 years of combined service, there is no basis to consider his advancement at this time because he is not eligible for consideration by a grade determination board or this Board by reason of insufficient service for advancement.

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

__cs____  ____fe __  __cmf ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040787	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/12	
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.