MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041941

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 his rank be restored to Master Sergeant (MSG) and that he be advanced to the pay grade of E-9 on the Retired List. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that although his pay grade was E-7, he held the rank title of MSG upon his retirement in 1957.  In 1995 when he went for a new Identification (ID) Card he was informed that he had been reduced to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC) even though his pay grade remained E-7.  He believes that it was unfair to reduce him without orders after he had been retired for over 38 years.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his discharge certificate which was signed by General Maxwell Taylor and lists his rank title as MSG.  He contends that this would not be an item that is contestable after the fact and that his being reduced for no reason with no orders should be in contravention of Army regulations.  Finally, he requests that his rank be restored to MSG and that based on his records he be advanced to the pay grade of E-9 on the Retired List.  

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

On 28 February 1957, he was released from active duty (REFRAD), under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3914, by reason of retirement.  At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 20 years and 3 days of active military service and held the rank of MSG and pay grade of 
E-7 and on the following day, 1 March 1957, he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.  

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 24 (Service Record) indicates in section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) that on 2 March 1955, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty. 

The Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of the DA Form 424 (Certification of Information for Retired Pay), prepared on 20 February 1957 which confirms that the applicant would be retired in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7.  

The record also contains a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). This form shows that he was separated, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 3914, by reason of retirement.  In addition, it verifies that he separated and was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7.  

Between 1 July 1955 and 31 May 1958 the enlisted grade structure consisted of the pay grades E-1 through E-7.  E-7 was the highest enlisted pay grade during that period and the corresponding rank title was MSG.  However, effective 1 July 1958, the Army changed its enlisted grade structure to include two additional pay grades, E-8 and E-9 and also changed the rank titles corresponding to these two new pay grades.  

The 1958 structure change resulted in the rank of SFC being changed to apply to the pay grade of E-7 and the rank of MSG was changed to correspond with the pay grade of E-8.  These changes did not retroactively apply to either the rank or pay grade of members separated or placed on the Retired List prior to the 1 June 1958 effective date.

Army Regulation 600-8-14 (Identification Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, their Family Members, and Other Eligible Personnel) provides the policy and procedure for eligibility, issue, and preparation of Military ID Cards.  It states, in pertinent part, that a member’s rank and pay grade should be listed on the ID card.  

The regulation does contain a list of pay grades and the corresponding current standard rank titles, which would lead a issuing clerk to conclude that when there is a pay grade of E-7 for an Army member the corresponding rank should read SFC.  However, the regulation calls for listing a member’s rank and pay grade and contains no specific language prohibiting the use of the member’s actual retirement rank and pay grade on the ID card.  

Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3914 provides the legal authority for the voluntary retirement of enlistment members of the Army.  It states, in pertinent part, that under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, an enlisted member of the Army who has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service, upon his request, be retired. 

Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961 (10 USC 3961) sets the policy and legal authority for retirement rank and pay grade.  It states, in pertinent part, that unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement.

Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964 contains the legal authority for the advancement of soldiers on the Retired List.  It states, in pertinent part, that retired enlisted members are entitled to, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and satisfactorily served in while on active duty.

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was erroneously reduced without the benefit of an order and that he should be advanced to the pay grade of E-9 on the Retired List and after carefully examining the evidence finds relief is not warranted.  

2.  The evidence reveals no error in the applicant’s military record.  He was placed on the Retired List on 1 March 1957, in the rank and pay grade of 
MSG/E-7.  A subsequent 1958 change to the Army’s enlisted rank structure resulted in no change to his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and did not impact his retired rank title or pay grade.  

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was reduced in rank via the ID card he received in 1995 is not an accurate assessment.  The rank listed on his ID card had no impact on his records, the rank he holds on the Retired List, nor did it result in his losing any benefits earned as a result of his military service.  Given the lack of any discernable error to his records or resultant injustice, the Board concludes there is no appropriate or effective relief related to this issue. 

4.  By law, advancement of soldiers on the Retired List is only authorized when a member has held and satisfactorily served in that higher pay grade while on active duty.  The evidence or record shows that the applicant never held a pay grade above E-7 and therefore, the Board concludes that his advancement on the Retired List is not warranted.

5.  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.

6.  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.

NOTE:  The Board finds no regulatory prohibition against the applicant’s rank being properly listed on his ID card, and therefore, recommends that the applicant contact the military ID card issuing facility and request a new ID card that lists his proper retirement rank, as it appears on the Retired List, as an exception to their normal policy.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rvo __  __ewl ___  ___jpi___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041941	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1957/02/28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	10 USC 3914	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.