MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045716

	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. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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:  Advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was reduced from the pay grade of E-7 to the pay grade of E-6 based on one isolated incident over 20 years of an otherwise exemplary career.  He further states that he had no previous incidents of misconduct and that 14 years of being retired at reduced pay is sufficient punishment for his offense.

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

He enlisted on 22 December 1969 for a period of 3 years and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 15 July 1980.

On 6 February 1985 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of disobeying a lawful order not to have sexual relations with advanced individual training (AIT) students and adultery.   He plead guilty and was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-6 and a forfeiture of pay.

On 1 August 1989 he submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) in which he requested retirement for length of service to be effective 1 August 1990.

His request was approved and he was released from active duty (REFRAD) on 31 July 1990 and was placed on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 August 1990.  He had served 20 years, 7 months and 9 days of total active service.

A review of the applicant’s records fails to show any other incidents of misconduct during his career.

On 7 August 2000 the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) reviewed the applicant’s records to determine if he should be advanced to the pay grade of E-7 on the Retired List based on the highest grade satisfactorily held while on active duty.  The AGDRB determined that his service in the pay grade of E-7 was not satisfactorily served when compared to his court-martial conviction and the offenses for which he was convicted.  Accordingly, the AGDRB voted unanimously to deny him advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-7.

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) and the AGDRB has been delegated the authority to make satisfactory service determinations on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.

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.  The Board concurs with the AGDRB determination that the applicant’s service in the pay grade was not satisfactory service when compared to the offenses for which he plead guilty and was convicted of by a summary court-martial.  While the Board concedes that he had an otherwise exemplary record of service, he violated the trust placed in him as a senior NCO and was properly reduced from that pay grade.

3.  Accordingly, the Board finds that he was properly placed on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-6 and that there is no basis for further advancement.

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

__cla____  __wtm___  __tbr ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045716	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/09/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/ADV ON RET LIST	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.