MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045853

	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:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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, promotion to the pay grade of E-9 retroactive to 1 September 1990 with entitlement to all back pay, entitlements and honors that are associated with that rank.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was not selected for attendance at the Sergeants Major Academy for reasons unknown and that he should have been selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-9 in September 1990 when he was assigned to the Pentagon because he served in all areas as a sergeant major would, he attended all of the conferences, and his evaluations were mostly outstanding. 

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

He enlisted on 16 August 1965 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  His highest military education was the primary leadership course and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 19 June 1983.

On 24 May 1992, while serving with the Information Systems Command in the Pentagon, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) in which he requested retirement by reason of length of service to be effective 1 February 1993.  He indicated on his application at that time that the highest pay grade he held on active duty was the pay grade of E-8. 

His request was approved and he was released from active duty on 31 January 1993 and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-8 effective 1 February 1993.  He had served 27 years, 5 months and 15 days of total active service.

Title 10, United States Code, provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completion 30 years of service.  This service may consist of combined active service and service in the USAR Control Group (Retired).

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.  In order to be advanced to a higher grade on the Retired List, the applicant must have at some time been advanced to a higher grade prior to his being placed on the Retired List.  The applicant has not submitted evidence with his application, and the evidence of record does not contain any evidence to show that he was ever promoted to a higher grade than he held at the time of retirement.  Therefore, there is no basis to promote him to a higher grade or to advance him on the Retired List.

3.  While the Board understands the applicant’s desire to be promoted to a higher grade, it would not be appropriate for the Board to attempt to second-guess the duly constituted promotion selection boards that had the advantage of reviewing the applicant’s records and those of his peers when it determined that the applicant was not the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army at the time in question.

4.  Inasmuch as there are no provisions to advance someone on the Retired List to a pay grade in which they have never held and satisfactorily served in, there is no basis for the Board to do so at this time.

5.  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

___jph___  __klw___  __rjw ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045853	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/19	
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.