MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044790

	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. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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 on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of Staff Sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was retired as a Specialist Four/E-4 (SP4/E-4) and that he has now completed the necessary time on the Retired List to be eligible for advancement to the highest grade he held, which was SSG/E-6. Based on this he requests that his records be reevaluated and that he be restored to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6.

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

On 30 June 1989, he was released from active duty (REFRAD), under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3914, by reason of length of service retirement.  At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 21 years and 13 days of active military service and held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4.  On the following day, 1 July 1989, 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 
9 January 1980, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty.  It also verifies that on 3 February 1984, he was reduced to the rank and pay grade of Sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) and that on 30 August 1984, he was reduced to the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4. 

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement , or service warranting special recognition between 9 January 1980 and 30 August 1984, the period in which he served as both a SSG/E-6 and a SGT/E-5.  During this same period, his record shows an extensive disciplinary history which includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on three separate occasions.

As a SSG/E-6, the applicant accepted NJP on 8 April 1980 for being disrespectful toward a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO).  In addition, on 
3 February 1984, he accepted NJP for failing to prepare for deployment, failing to have an evening meal ready, and for failing to have proper mess operations which caused some soldiers to become ill.  His punishment for these offenses included a reduction to SGT/E-5.

On 30 August 1984, while serving as a SGT/E-5, the applicant accepted NJP for conspiring to commit larceny and for committing larceny.  His punishment for these offenses included a reduction to SP4/E-4.

The record contains a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant on the date of his REFRAD.  This document shows that he was separated, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 3914, by reason of voluntary length of service retirement after completing a total of 
21 years and 13 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 also confirms that on 30 June 1989, the date of his REFRAD, the applicant held the rank of SP4//E-4 and that on the following day he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade. 

On 25 July 2000, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) determined, based on the applicant’s record of misconduct as a SSG/E-6 and SGT/E-5, that his service in those ranks and pay grades was not satisfactory, and voted to deny his advancement on the retired list.

Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided policies and procedures pertaining to career management of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7 contained Army policy in regard to the promotion and reduction of enlisted personnel.  Section XII provided guidance on the reduction of enlisted personnel and paragraph 7-64 stated, in pertinent part, that misconduct as documented by Article 15 of the UCMJ was a valid reason for taking reduction action on enlisted members in the pay grades of E-6 and below.  

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’s service as a SSG/E-6 and as a SGT/E-5 was not satisfactory and that his advancement on the Retired List is not warranted.  

2.  After carefully evaluating the applicant’s entire record of service, the Board concludes that he was reduced to SGT/E-5 and SP4/E-4 as a result of his own misconduct and that these reduction actions were properly accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would not be appropriate to advance the applicant on the Retired List at this time. 

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

___jdm __  ___ra ___  __cg____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044790	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1989/06/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C12	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.