MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            23 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073836

	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. Jennifer L. prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 records be corrected to show his rank title as command sergeant major (CSM), vice sergeant major (SGM).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that in 1966, a directive was sent to the major medical command instructing them to identify the individual occupying the command sergeant major position and the appropriate entry would be made on the unit morning report.  He contends that he was reported as the person in the position and at the same time his military occupational specialty (MOS) was changed to 91Z.  He indicates that his title was changed from SGM to CSM at that time in 1966.  The applicant also points out that graduation from the Sergeants Major Academy was not a prerequisite for CSM appointment at the time he served and his not completing this current day requirement should not be used as a basis to deny his request.  In support of his application, he provides a letter from a customer service specialist with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Cleveland, Ohio, and a letter from the Chief, Transition Services, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  

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

On 30 April 1967, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 26 years, 3 months, and 9 days of active military service.

The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) indicates in Item 
33 (Appointments and Reductions) that the applicant was promoted to the rank of SGM and pay grade of E-9 on 7 December 1959.  There is no entry in this item that indicates that he was ever laterally appointed to the rank of CSM.  

On 16 May 1966, Special Orders Number 98, issued by Headquarters, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, directed the following MOS action on the applicant:  that he be awarded the primary MOS of 91Z50 and that the MOS of 91B40 be withdrawn.  The identification lead line contained in these orders listed the applicant’s rank as SGM, and not CSM.  

On 1 November 1966, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339), requesting that he be retired on 1 May 1967 in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9.  

On 16 January 1967, a Department of the Army (DA) letter was published that forwarded the applicant’s retirement packet to his command.  Included in this packet was a copy of an extract of DA Special Orders Number 10, paragraph 275, dated 16 January 1967, which authorized the applicant’s REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 30 April 1967, and his placement on the Retired List on 1 May 1967.  This order indicated that the applicant’s current grade was 
SGM (E-9) and that his MOS was 91Z.  

A Data for Retired Pay (AGPZ Form 977), dated 16 January 1967, that was prepared on the applicant during retirement processing confirms that the applicant’s active duty grade was SGM at that time.  It also contains the entry SGM (E-9) in the following items:  Item 2 (Retired Grade); Item 6 (Highest Grade Held); and Item 17 (Retired Pay Grade).  

A retirement award citation prepared at DA referred to the applicant’s rank title as SGM in both the lead line and in the written citation.  There was no reference to the applicant having held the rank title of CSM contained in this award citation. 

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the 
date of his REFRAD for the purpose of retirement contains the entry SGM in 
Item 5a (Grade, Rate, or Rank), which indicates he held that rank title on the 
date of his separation.  In addition, Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) confirms his MOS was 91Z (Medical Senior Sergeant).  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Separated), thereby, verifying the information contained therein.  

In support of his application, the applicant has provided a letter from the Chief, Transition Services, U.S. Medical Department Center and School, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  Included with this letter as an enclosure was a letter from a DFAS customer service representative, dated 14 December 2001, which indicated that DFAS records list the applicant’s retired rank title as CSM.  Finally, this official requests that the appropriate corrections be made to the applicant personnel records reflecting his retired rank as CSM.  

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 his rank title should be CSM, vice SGM, as is currently recorded in his personnel records.  In addition, it carefully considered the supporting letters he provided, which indicate his retired pay record lists his rank title as CSM.  However, it still finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was processed for retirement and placed on the Retired List with the rank title of SGM and not
CSM.  This fact is further supported by the rank and pay grade entries contained in all documents and orders published on the applicant during his retirement processing.  This includes a Data for Retired Pay Form, which should have been the source document used by finance to establish his retired pay record.  

3.  The Board wishes to advise the applicant that it does not question the veracity of his claim that he was made a CSM prior to his retirement.  However, lacking independent evidence showing that he was formally appointed a CSM prior to his REFRAD, the Board is compelled to deny the requested relief in the interest of all those who served in this same time frame and who faced similar circumstances.  

4.  In addition, the applicant should be aware that current day standards were not applied in his case.  Specifically the fact that he did not graduate from the Sergeants Major Academy, which did not exist during the time he served, was not a discriminator and had no bearing on the conclusions arrived at by the Board.  The determination of the Board is based solely on the lack of evidence confirming that he was officially appointed a CSM while he was serving on active duty.  

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

___JLP__  __HOF__  __GJW__    DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073836	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967/04/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.