MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043647

	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. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of Sergeant First Class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) on the Retired List. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he retired as a Specialist Four/E-4 
(SP4/E-4) after having served satisfactorily in the higher grades of Sergeant/E-5
(SGT/E-5), Staff Sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6), and SFC/E-7, and requests that it be determined in which grade he satisfactorily served for advancement on the Retired List purposes.  

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

On 31 January 1988, 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 14 days of active military service and held the rank and pay grade of 
SP4/E-4 and on the following day, 1 February 1988, he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.  

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) indicates in block 18 (Appointments and Reductions) that on 
4 November 1982, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty, after having served as a SSG/E-6 since 14 September 1978.  It also verifies that on 11 September 1985, he had been reduced to the rank and pay grade of private/E-1 (PV1) as a result of a court-martial conviction and that he earned promotions back through the rank of SP4 prior to his being REFRAD.

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement between 4 November 1982 and 11 September 1985, the period he served in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7.  However, it does show that on 10 July 1985, while serving as an SFC/E-7, he was convicted by a general court-martial of three specifications of making false statements; larceny; and wearing unauthorized awards.  His sentence for these offenses included his reduction to the rank of PV1.  

The DA Form 2339 (Application for Voluntary Retirement), prepared by the applicant, is on file in records.  This form verifies that he submitted his request for retirement on 24 February 1987, with a requested retirement date of 31 January 1988.  On 27 February 1987, the appropriate authority approved his retirement request for 31 January 1988, in the rank of SP4/E-4.

The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant on the date of his retirement.  This document shows that he was separated, under the provisions of chapter 12, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of length of service retirement.  In addition, at the time of his REFRAD he held the rank of SP4/E-4 and had completed a total of 20 years and 14 days of active military service.

On 21 June 2000, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) determined, based on the applicant’s record of misconduct as a SFC/E-7, that his service in that rank and pay grade was not satisfactory, and voted to deny his advancement on the Retired List to that grade.  However, they did conclude that the applicant satisfactorily served in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 and approved his advancement on the Retired List to that rank and pay grade. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 12 sets policies and procedures for voluntary retirement of soldiers because of length of service.  Paragraph 12-3b states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement as directed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961 (10 USC 3961). 

Paragraph 12-6 (Advancement on the Retired List) contains guidance on the advancement of soldiers on the Retired List.  It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers 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 concurs with the determination of the AGDRB that the applicant should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 because that is the last grade in which he satisfactorily served on active duty, and that his service as an SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory.

2.  Therefore, after carefully examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board found that advancement on the Retired List beyond that already granted by the AGDRB is not appropriate nor warranted in this case.  

3.  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.

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

___klw __  ___sac__  ___amc__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043647	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1988/01/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C12 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 319	131.0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.