MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            8 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048362

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger 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 he be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSG) E-8 and his retired status adjusted accordingly, or at a minimum be advanced on the retired list to sergeant first class (SFC), the highest grade he held on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was promoted to SFC on 8 September 1968 and served in that rank for 13 ½ years.  He further states that because his unit needed his leadership skills, he was never permitted to attend school to earn college credit towards promotion.  Given this, he feels that he should have been promoted to MSG approximately five to ten years earlier.  The applicant further contends that he was accused of something that he was not responsible for and found guilty.  Upon completing his sentence, he went through re-training and was reinstated in the Army as a specialist four E-4 until the end of his enlistment.  At that time he was retired in the grade of E-4.  He has waited for fourteen years and now asks this Board to advance him to the highest grade held, E-7, and to consider his request for promotion to E-8.  In support of his application, he provides copies of letters of recommendation, appreciation and commendation, certificates of appreciation and achievement, and award citations for the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 11 October 1960 for 2 years.  On 
19 December 1960 he reenlisted for 3 years.  He served in a series of assignments both in the United States and overseas, including a combat tour to the Republic of Vietnam.  He attained the rank of sergeant first class on 
8 September 1968.

The applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted three times as a SFC E-7 and served in that capacity for more than 12 years.

On 5 December 1980 the applicant was convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of stealing government property, three specifications, with a total value of $77,260.00.  He was sentenced to a reduction to private, E-1, confinement at hard labor for 1 year, and a dishonorable discharge.  The sentence was approved on 26 May 1981.  He was confined for 236 days from 26 May1981 to 21 January 1982, at which time his dishonorable discharge was suspended until 18 May 1982, and he was returned to duty.  The applicant was promoted to specialist four E-4 on 9 March 1982.  

On 1 April 1983 the applicant retired in lieu of a permanent change of station.  He completed 21 years, 10 months and 12 days of creditable active service and had 236 days of lost time.  His rank and pay grade at retirement was specialist four 
E-4.

On 12 December 1990 the applicant requested consideration for advancement on the retired list to the highest grade he held.  On 9 April 1991 the Army Council of Review Boards determined by unanimous vote that he had not served satisfactorily at the grade of E-7, but had served satisfactorily at the grade of E-6. Accordingly, he was placed on the retired list in the grade of E-6 effective 19 May 1991.

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 applicant was never promoted to MSG E-8.  Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate that he was unfairly denied consideration for promotion to this grade.  Therefore, he is not entitled to promotion or to advancement on the retired list to MSG.

2.  The Army Council of Review Boards determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of E-7.  Even though the applicant served for more than 12 years in the grade of E-7 the seriousness of his court-martial offenses significantly overcame his previous good works.  Therefore, this Board finds that the applicant’s highest grade held satisfactorily is E-6.

3.  The applicant’s evidence showing his achievements, awards, and recommendations is not sufficiently mitigating to overcome his misconduct.

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

__RA____  __BJL_  __WDP___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048362	
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.