MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060607

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jo Ann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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, that his military records be changed to show the correct skill level for his military occupational specialty (MOS).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the skill level shown in item 16 (Primary Specialty Number and Title) of his separation document (DD Form 214) is incorrect.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his MOS award orders and a certificate of training.

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

On 31 March 1976, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) at the expiration of his term of service.  At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 3 years and 1 month of active military service.

Special Orders Number 130, dated 27 June 1973, issued by Headquarters, U. S. Army Quartermaster Center, Fort Lee, Virginia, shows that he was awarded MOS 
76Y (Unit and Organization Supply Specialist and Armorer) with a skill level of 3, effective 11 July 1973.  

The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4) and Item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and Title) contains the entry 76Y10, Unit and Organization Supply Specialist and Armorer.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his separation, thereby verifying the information contained therein and there is no indication that he raised the skill level issue at the time or in the over 25 years that have passed since.  

Army Regulation 611-201 prescribes the policy and procedures for the enlisted MOS classification structure of the active Army.  Paragraph 1-7, in effect at the time of his separation, identifies the relationship between skill level and grade.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the following skill levels will be assigned to enlisted personnel in the grades listed:  skill level 1 – E-1 through E-4; skill level 2 – E-5; skill level 3 – E-6; skill level 4 – E-7; and skill level 5 – E-8 and E-9.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that the skill level listed on his 
DD Form 214 is incorrect.  However, it also notes that he authenticated the information contained in his separation document by signing it on the date of his separation, and that this included the MOS and skill level data contained in item 16a, to which he raised no objection at the time.  

2.  By regulation, there is a direct correlation between a soldier’s grade and skill level and the authorized skill level for personnel in the grade of E-4 is 1.  The applicant did provide documents that indicate he was awarded the MOS 76Y (Unit and Organization Supply Specialist and Armorer) with a skill level of 3 in 1973, however, the Board finds this does not impact the appropriate skill level assignment made at the time of his separation in 1976.  

3.  The Board finds the skill level 1 assigned the applicant in his DD Form 214 correlates with the highest rank he held on active duty, SP4, and does not constitute an error that would result in an injustice being served upon the applicant or in the denial of any earned benefits.  Therefore, the Board concludes that changing it at this time would provide the applicant no effective relief and therefore, would be inappropriate.

4.  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.

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

__JHL__   _ _RJW__  __RTD     DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060607	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/26	
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.	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.