MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:        16 April 2002       
	DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002066562

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show a corresponding pay grade of E-7 to his rank title of sergeant first class (SFC).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the FSM was not granted a corresponding pay grade of E-7 when he was promoted to SFC.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The FSM’s military records show:

On 31 March 1961, the FSM was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 20 years and 9 days of active military service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the FSM on the date of his separation confirms, he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6 on his separation date. 

The FSM’s Service Record (DA Form 24), which documents his record of service from 22 July 1949 through 31 March 1961, confirms in Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions), that the FSM was promoted to the rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-6 on 29 October 1956, and that this was the highest rank and pay grade he held and served in while on active duty. 

The FSM’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains an Application for Retirement (DA Form 2339), dated 9 January 1961, which confirms that he requested voluntary retirement, in the rank of SFC and pay grade of E-6, on 
31 March 1961.  It also verifies that his grade at retirement would be SFC/E-6.  In addition, there is an Office of the Adjutant General (OTAG), Department of the Army (DA), letter, dated 24 February 1961, on file that approved the FSM’s retirement.  Enclosed with this letter, is an extract of DA Special Orders Number 48, which authorized the FSM’s retirement in the rank of SFC and pay grade of E-6, and his placement on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade on 
1 April 1961.  A Certification of Information for Retirement Pay (DD Form 424) on file also verifies that the grade in which the FSM was retired was SFC/E-6.  

In 1958, the Army changed the enlisted rank structure.  This resulted in the rank title of master sergeant (MSG) corresponding with the pay grade of E-8; the rank title of SFC corresponding to the pay grade E-7; and the rank title of staff sergeant (SSG) corresponding to the pay grade E-6.  However, this structure change did not impact either the rank title or the pay grade of personnel that had been promoted prior to the change, which is the operative policy in this case.  In other words, unless subsequently promoted under the new system, members who had been promoted to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change retained those rank titles and the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, which were E-7 for MSG and E-6 for SFC.

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 FSM’s record should be corrected to reflect the pay grade E-7 corresponding to his retired rank title of SFC.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  At the time of the 1958 change to the Army’s enlisted structure, the governing policy provided for members, who had been promoted to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change, to retain those rank titles and the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, which were E-7 for MSG and E-6 for SFC, unless they were subsequently promoted under the new system.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the FSM was promoted to the rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-6 on 29 October 1956, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty.  It also verifies that he was not promoted subsequent to the 1958 Army enlisted rank structure change.  He held the rank of SFC and pay grade E-6 on the date of his REFRAD for the purpose of retirement, 31 March 1961, and was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade on 1 December 1961.  Therefore, the Board finds no propriety or equity basis for changing the pay grade of E-6 that is currently recorded in the FSM’s record. 

4.  In view of the fact that the FSM’s record accurately reflects his rank title with the applicable corresponding pay grade, there appears to be no effective relief that could be provided by the Board.  However, although no tangible benefits would result, the applicant may wish to contact any Army organization that incorrectly lists the FSM’s rank title as SSG and request that they change their mailing lists to reflect his proper rank title of SFC, as accurately reflected in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  A copy of this decisional document may be used to support any of these requests the applicant wishes to make.  

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

__INW__  __MMD__  __JTM___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066562	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1961/03/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  302	129.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.