MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047205

	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. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should be advanced on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-6, the highest grade he held while on active duty.

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

He served in the Navy from 15 May 1950 until he was honorably discharged on 11 March 1954.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 May 1955 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 21 June 1966.

On 25 January 1967, while serving in Vietnam, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for disobeying lawful orders from a superior commissioned officer and a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-5 (suspended until 26 February 1967)

He had NJP imposed against him again on 6 July 1967, while still in Vietnam, for being AWOL from 28 June until 29 June 1967.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-5 (suspended for 4 months) and a forfeiture of pay. 

On 14 November 1967 he was convicted by a special court-martial of larceny.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-4 and to a forfeiture of pay.  He was subsequently promoted back to the pay grade of E-5 on 23 July 1968.

He had NJP imposed against him on 7 April 1969 for failure to go to his place of duty at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction (suspended).

On 15 July 1969 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 April to 25 April 1969.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay and restriction. 

He had NJP imposed against him on 11 September 1969 for failure to go to his place of duty on 5 and 6 September 1969.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 (suspended for 90 days) and a forfeiture of pay.

On 19 November 1971 he submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) whereas he requested retirement by reason of length of service effective 1 February 1972.  His request was approved and he was honorably released from active duty on 31 January 1972 and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-5 effective 1 February 1972.  He had served 20 years and 28 days of total active service.

The applicant’s case and records were reviewed by the Army Grade Determination Board (AGDRB) on 14 September 2000 to determine the highest grade satisfactorily held by him while on active duty.  The Board determined that nonjudicial punishment had been imposed against the applicant on at least three occasions, that he was convicted by court-martials on at least two occasions and that the highest grade he had satisfactorily held was that of the pay grade of E-5. That board determined that he should remain on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-5 and opined that he should not be advanced on the Retired list to the pay grade of E-6. 

Title 10, United States Code, provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held, 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 and service in that grade must have been deemed satisfactory.  The AGDRB has determined that the highest grade in which the applicant satisfactorily served in while on active duty was the pay grade of E-5 and the Board is inclined to agree with that board’s decision.  The evidence of record clearly shows in the form of his record of disciplinary actions that his service in the pay grade of E-6 was not satisfactory for an NCO with his years of service.  

3.  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

___ena__  __mdm__  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047205	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  306	129.0400/HI GRD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.