MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056777

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 his records be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-6 or E-7 with retroactive payment back to 1995.

APPLICANT STATES: That he “was by passed for promotion on 3 different occasions, none of which was through my fault.  This is a grave injustice, being qualified, yet by passed for promotion, in the manner in which this was done, by units I was assigned to.”  In support of his request, he provides 12 letters of support, 12 miscellaneous military documents (evaluation reports and certificates), an Institutional Trade Instructor I (Cooking) classification for the state of New Jersey, a cleaning chart for Marlboro Camp (sic), and a task list for Military Occupational Specialty 94B30. 

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

During the period 6 September to 6 October 1956, the applicant served in the US Air Force and received a General Discharge.

During the period 23 August 1975 to 29 July 1990, he served in the Army Reserve (USAR).

On 13 August 1978, he was promoted to pay grade E-5.

During the period 30 July 1990 to 24 February 1992, he served in the New Jersey Army National Guard.

During the period 25 February 1992 to 14 March 1995, he served in a USAR Troop Program Unit.

On 12 February 1995, after being advised his unit was being inactivated or reorganized, he declined assignment to a position in another unit, requested transfer to the IRR without benefits and indicated he had 19 years qualified service for non-regular retired pay.  He was formally counseled on this date.

On 15 March 1995, he was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

On 17 April 1999, he was placed on the Retired List, in pay grade E-5.

The Board notes that the applicant was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-6 on one occasion; however, he was never selected for or promoted to pay grades E-6 or E-7.

This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.  The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.

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 is not entitled to promotion to E-6 or E-7 with retroactive payment back to 1995.  His contentions and evidence have been reviewed; however, they do not support his request.

2.  Based on the available records, there is no indication the applicant ever officially served in a position calling for pay grade E-6 or E-7.

3.  There is no evidence the applicant was ever selected for or promoted to pay grade E-6 or E-7; therefore, he is not entitled to promotion to either of those grades now.

4.  There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes the presumption of regularity in this case.

5.  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.

6.  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____  _dph____  _clg____    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056777	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.