MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043119

	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:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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, retroactive promotion to the pay grade of   E-8 and placement on the Retired List in that grade.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was placed on the promotion list in July 1967 and was unjustly removed from the standing list by a commander (colonel) and a sergeant major (SGM) who were prejudiced.  He further states that he attempted to resolve the issue to no avail and finally decided that because of the treatment he had received and the overall hostile racial climate at the time, that he would retire.  He further states that he recognizes that racial injustices and issues are exposed in today’s Army and that the black soldier is given the chance to receive equal treatment that is earned and due.  In support of his application he submits a copy of the promotion list from which he was removed as well as copies of some of his awards and commendatory letters.

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

He was inducted on 3 August 1945 and served until he was honorably discharged on 16 January 1947.

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 October 1948 and served through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 21 July 1964.

On 21 July 1967 the applicant appeared before a Senior Enlisted Selection Board and was not recommended for promotion.  The president of the selection board prepared the board results and recommended that the applicant’s name not be placed on the promotion list.  However, the Group commander (a colonel) directed that the board results be approved with the addition of the applicant’s name to the recommended list.

On 30 October 1967 a succeeding commander (a colonel) notified the applicant that he was being removed from the promotion standing list because he had not been recommended for promotion by the promotion selections board and that the previous commander did not have the authority to add him to the list if he was not recommended.  He went on to cite that an interpretation of the regulatory provisions had been checked with higher headquarters and confirmed that his addition to the promotion list was an administrative error.  Accordingly, the promotion standing list was re-published without the applicant’s name.

On 5 January 1970 the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) whereas he requested retirement by reason of length of service to be effective 1 January 1971.  He indicated at that time that the highest grade in which he had served on active duty was the pay grade of   E-7. 

Accordingly, he was honorably released from active duty on 31 December 1970 and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-7 effective 1 January 1971.  He had served 23 years, 6 months and 12 days of total active service.

A review of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) fails to show that he was ever promoted to the pay grade of E-8.

Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided the criteria for the conduct and approval/disapproval of promotion selection boards and their results.  It states, in pertinent part, that a list of the individuals recommended by a promotion selection board may be either approved or disapproved in its entirety by the promotion authority.  In the event the board report is disapproved, the promotion may convene an entirely new selection board, composed of new members, as soon as possible after the date of disapproval.

Title 10, United States Code, 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.  Based on the available evidence, it appears that the applicant was erroneously added to the promotion standing lists after having not been recommended by the promotion selection board.  The applicable regulation in effect at the time clearly provided that the promotion authority could either approve or disapprove the selection board findings in its entirety.  There were no provisions for him to modify the findings and recommendations to add or delete personnel from the list.  Accordingly, the applicant’s removal from the recommended list was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his removal from the recommended list was the result of racial prejudice is not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  Accordingly, there is no basis to promote him to a rank in which he was not recommended for or never held.
4.  Inasmuch as advancement on the Retired List requires that a person must at some time held a higher grade while on active duty and the applicant clearly was never advanced beyond the grade he held at the time he was placed on the Retired List, there is no basis to do so at this time.   

5.  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

___amc__  __jam___  ___alr___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043119	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/adv to high grd	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.