MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041550

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 on a promotion standing list for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 when the Army implemented the centralized promotion system and he should have been promoted at that time to the pay grade of E-7 because he was working in an E-7 position.

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

The applicant entered active duty in November 1945 and served through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 5 December 1967.

On 21 August 1971, while stationed in Vietnam, the applicant’s command forwarded a promotion packet and standing list to the Department of the Army requesting clarification as to whether the applicant had been considered for promotion.

On 26 August 1971 The Adjutant General (TAG) of the Army responded to the inquiry to the effect that effective 1 June 1970, promotions to the pay grade of   E-7 were centralized at Department of the Army and that in order for the applicant to have been promoted, he would have had to have been on an order of merit list for promotion.  The TAG further directed that if such a list existed with the applicant’s name on it, it could be forwarded to the headquarters for consideration. 

It appears that the command submitted the standing list for promotion in which the applicant’s name was contained and the TAG returned it on 16 September 1971 indicating that the lists were not acceptable as an order of merit list and that further documentation was required.  There is no indication in the available records which shows that any further action was taken in this matter.

On 5 October 1971 the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) whereas he requested retirement for length of service to be effective 1 February 1972.

On 31 January 1972 he was released from active duty and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-6, effective 1 February 1972.  He had served 25 years, 11 months, and 19 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.  A condition for advancement on the Retired List is that the individual concerned must have satisfactorily served in the higher grade on active duty at some time prior to being placed on the Retired List.  Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was ever promoted to the pay grade of E-7 or that he was unjustly denied promotion to that grade, there is no basis to advance him on the Retired List to a grade he has never satisfactorily held.

3.  The Board finds that the applicant’s promotion status was reviewed twice by the TAG at the time and was found to be proper.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the actions taken by the Department were in accordance with regulations in effect at the 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

____js___  __rjw____  ____rtd _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041550	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/03	
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.