MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072147

	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:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 he be paid in the pay grade of E-8.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served on active duty as a master sergeant/E-7 (MSG/E-7) when the new ranks of E-8 and E-9 came into effect.  As a result, he was made a sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7).  He also states that he served in the pay grade of E-7 for over three years and should have been made a MSG/E-8 at the time of the structure change. 

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

He served on active duty a total of 20 years, 6 months, and 4 days and was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement on 
30 September 1959.  

The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24), covering his period of service from 15 November 1949 through his retirement date of 30 September 1959, confirms in Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7 on 20 May 1948, and this rank and pay grade were made permanent (P) on 14 December 1955.  

Department of the Army (DA) Special Orders Number 115, dated 28 August 1959, authorized the applicant’s REFRAD on 30 September 1959 and his placement on the Retired List on 1 October 1959.  This order also stipulated that he would be placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7.

A Certification of Information for Retired Pay (DD Form 424), dated 28 August 1959, was prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing.  This document confirms in Item 9 (Grade In Which Retired), that the applicant’s authorized retired rank and pay grade was MSG/E-7. 

On 30 September 1959, the applicant was issued a separation document 
(DD Form 214), which he authenticated with his signature in Item 34 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged).  This document lists the applicant’s rank and pay grade as MSG/E-7 (P), which confirms this was the permanent rank and pay grade he held on the date of his REFRAD, and in which he would be placed on the Retired List.  

In 1958, the Army changed the enlisted rank and grade structure.  This resulted in the rank title of 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 because he held the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7 at the time the enlisted rank and grade structure was changed, his pay grade should have been changed to E-8.  However, the Board finds an insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  At the time of the 1958 change to the Army’s enlisted rank and grade structure, the governing policy mandated that members who had been promoted to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change would retain those rank titles and the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, unless they were subsequently promoted under the new system.  There were no provisions for advancing a member to a higher pay grade based on a given period of service performed in his current rank and pay grade.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to the rank of MSG with a corresponding pay grade of E-7 on 20 May 1948, 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 and grade structure change.  He held the rank of MSG and pay grade E-7 on the date of his REFRAD for the purpose of retirement, 30 September 1959; and he was appropriately placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade on 1 October 1959.  Therefore, the Board finds no propriety or equity basis for changing the pay grade of E-7 that is currently recorded in the applicant’s record. 

4.  In view of the fact that the applicant’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 his rank title as SFC and request that they change their mailing lists to reflect his proper rank title of MSG, as is 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

__JNS __  __INW __  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072147	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1959/09/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C12	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  803	144.9213	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.