MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042701

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers 		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:  In effect, promotion to pay grade E-7 (sergeant first class).  

APPLICANT STATES:  That during his tour in Vietnam he was not offered a promotion to E-7 even though he had enough time in grade.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of a letter to the President of the United States dated 15 January 2000; and a copy of an undated letter to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Washington, D.C.   

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The Veterans of Foreign Wars, as counsel for the applicant, notes that during the period 18 October 1948 to 21 December 1950, the applicant advanced from private to sergeant.  Counsel contends that it took over ten years to gain advancement to staff sergeant and then the applicant served an additional eight years without further promotion.  Counsel also notes that the applicant served through two major conflicts (Korea and Vietnam) and that his records did not reveal any derogatory remarks concerning his performance or conduct.        

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

On 26 March 1969, while serving in the pay grade of E-6, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement based on length of service.  His request was approved on 21 April 1969 for retirement on 1 August 1969.

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably released from active duty on 31 July 1969 and placed on the Retired list effective 1 August 1969.  He had served 
20 years, 8 months and 7 days of total active service. 

Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows “SSG (P)” [staff sergeant (permanent)] and item 
5b (Pay Grade) shows “E6”.

Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) on the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was promoted to E-6 on 2 March 1961.

There is no evidence in the applicant’s military records which shows he was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-7. 

Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), dated 24 March 1965 with changes 1 through 47, governed the promotion of enlisted personnel at the time of the applicant’s service.  The regulation specified that the underlying concept of the Army promotion system was to promote the best qualified 

individual and to recognize outstanding individuals with great potential for leadership or increased responsibility in their chosen fields.  The regulation delegated promotion authority to pay grades E-5 and E-6 to field grade commanders of any organization which is authorized a commander in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher.  Temporary promotions to pay grades E-4 through E-7 were made based on quota allocations which required recommendation by the unit commander and promotion eligibility based on time in grade, time in service, the proper military occupational specialty (MOS), a score of 110 or higher on the latest primary MOS test, assignment in the next lower pay grade than that of the unit position vacancy; physical qualification, and completion of eighth grade or GED equivalent for promotion to E-5.  The recommendation for promotion could be disapproved at any level and returned, and waiver of certain promotion eligibility requirements was allowed.  Eligible soldiers were considered by a local selection board comprised of at least three voting members which could select sufficient personnel for promotion to fill authorized position vacancies projected in the unit for a two-month period.  The soldiers selected for promotion were placed on a lineal promotion list based on the number of points received from the promotion board and were promoted based on vacancies in the unit for which they qualified.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was not offered a promotion to E-7 even though he had enough time in grade.  However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board which shows the applicant was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-7.  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of error or injustice there is no basis to approve the applicant’s request for promotion to pay grade E-7.    

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

AAO____  WDP____  MMD____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042701	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001026	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690801	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	Title 10 US Code Section 3914	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement after 20 but less than 30 years active Federal service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.