MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           28 November 2000   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044593

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Wilfred A. Hale, Jr.		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 current rank title (sergeant first class) be corrected to show master sergeant. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he retired from the USAR in October 1966 in pay grade E-7 (master sergeant) and now his pay grade is E-7 (sergeant first class).  He contends that he would still like to be remembered as a master sergeant and that had he stayed in until the new pay grades were implemented he would have automatically made E-8.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of an article titled “Who can be advanced on the retired list” from the Army Echoes and a Letter of Commendation, dated 6 November 1966, which shows his rank title as master sergeant. 

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

The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted in the Army of the United States on 2 March 1942.  He served as an anti tank gun crewman in the European Theater of Operations and was honorably discharged on 1 October 1945.  He immediately enlisted in the Enlisted Reserve Corps for a period of
3 years.  The applicant remained in the USAR through continuous reenlistments until he was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank of master sergeant 
(E-7) on 31 October 1966.  Subsequently, the applicant was placed on the Retired list in pay grade E-7 on 13 December 1983, at the age of 60.   

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was promoted to pay grade E-7 (master sergeant) effective 1 March 1954.

The applicant’s orders, dated 17 October 1966, which transferred him to the Retired Reserve show his pay grade as E-7 (master sergeant).

There is no evidence in the applicant’s military records which shows that he served at a higher pay grade than E-7.

On 2 May 1975 the Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center notified the applicant (20 year letter) that he had completed the required years of service to be eligible for retired pay, upon application, at age 60 
(13 December 1983).  This letter shows his rank title as sergeant first class. 

A review of the enlisted rank/grade structure in effect on 1 July 1955, indicates that a master sergeant was classified as pay grade E-7.

On 1 June 1958, under the Career Compensation Act of 1958, the enlisted rank and pay structure of the Army was changed.  Two additional pay grades were added to the enlisted force, pay grade E-8 (master sergeant or first sergeant) and pay grade E-9 (sergeant major or command sergeant major).  Only personnel on active duty at the time were selected for promotion to these two new pay grades. Under this new rank and pay structure, a sergeant first class was classified as pay grade E-7.  However, noncommissioned officers in grades E-5, E-6, and E-7 were allowed to retain their titles held on 31 May 1958 unless involved in personnel action which resulted in reduction or promotion at which time the
1 June 1958 grades went into effect.  This ranking/pay grade structure has been carried through to the present time.  

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 applicant’s contention that he retired from the USAR as an E-7 (master sergeant) in 1966 and now his pay grade is E-7 (sergeant first class), is valid.

2.  Evidence of record shows that the highest pay grade the applicant ever served in was pay grade E-7.  

3.  Further, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in pay grade
E-7 with the rank title of master sergeant.  He was also placed on the Retired list in that same pay grade.  

4.  Subsequent to his retirement, several changes have been made to the enlisted force structure.  As a result, the applicant’s rank title was administratively changed to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7.  Therefore, there is no basis to change the applicant’s rank title to master sergeant at this time. 

5.  His contentions that he would like to be remembered as a master sergeant and that if he had stayed in the USAR until the new grades came out he would have been automatically made E-8, appear to be without merit.  The rank of first sergeant and master sergeant are currently paid at the pay grade E-8 pay level.  However, personnel were required to be serving on active duty to be promoted to that higher pay grade.  

6.  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.

7.  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

MKP____  JHK_____  WAH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044593	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001128	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19661031	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.