MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            8 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044623

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	
	Mr.  William D. Powers		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:  That his records be corrected by reinstating him to the pay grade of E-6 for the period June 1985 to January 1996, with back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was reduced in error  beginning in 1985 through 1996, that he should have never been reduced because the punishment was suspended as was the forfeiture.  In support of his request the applicant submits a copy of DA Form 4126, (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate) and a grade determination letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 July 1974 in the pay grade of   E-4.  He was subsequently promoted to pay grades E-5, E-6 and E-7, on            3 March 1975, 22 February 1977 and 21 June 1983, respectively.

On 13 March 1984, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial on    33 counts of Article 92 (Trainee Abuse) for borrowing money from trainees from  1 September 1983 to 29 October 1983.  His sentence was reduction to pay grade E-6. 

On 13 June 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for assaulting a female, and disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-5, and a forfeiture which was suspended until 12 September 1985.

On 18 December 1985, the applicant’s commander who issued the 13 June 1985 Article 15, further clarified the punishment he imposed by stating that the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-5, that the reduction was not suspended and that only the forfeiture was suspended until 12 September 1985.  The error occurred when a legal clerk typed the word “and” which made it appear that the reduction and the forfeiture were suspended.  The commander corrected the Article 15 and attached a statement detailing the error, and that it was not his intent to suspend the demotion.   

The applicant retired on 31 January 1987, in the pay grade of E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12 for length of service.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 
21 years, 2 months and 4 days of creditable service.

The October 1999 letter from DFAS, submitted by the applicant in support of his request, indicates that the Army Grade Determination Review Board determined that the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily was E-6, and as such was advanced on the retired list in that grade effective 1 January 1996. 

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 his records were in error or that there was an injustice in his case.

2.  The applicant’s commander who issued the Article 15 on 13 June 1985 clearly states that the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-5 and that the reduction was not suspended.  

3.  The letter submitted by the applicant from DFAS, is a computation of retired pay, based on a grade determination of his highest grade held, and has no bearing on his request.   
 
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

___rwa__  ___bjl___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044623	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010308	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  131.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.