MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074022

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 that he retired in the rank of command sergeant major (CSM).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served in CSM positions prior to the inception of the CSM program.  He claims that there are very few individuals who served in command positions and held the pay grade E-9 prior to the inception of the CSM designation still living.  Most of them served during the Korean and Vietnam conflict and some as he did served during World War II.  He claims that he was promoted to sergeant major (SGM) in the pay grade E-7, the highest enlisted rank at that time, on 19 August 1942, just 22 days after his twentieth first birthday.  He believes that he was the youngest SGM in the Army at that time.  He states that most of the military correspondence addressed to him reflects his designated rank as CSM.  He claims that all the E-9s that he knows who retired prior to the inception of the CSM program receive similar correspondence and consider themselves to be CSM’s.  He comments that there is very little the military can do to recognize E-9s that served in CSM positions and retired prior to the inception of the CSM program, but it seems to him that it would be an excellent way to reward them for their added responsibility, especially during periods of conflict, which he believes is what the CSM program was designed to do.  He asks that the supporting letter request be included in the material presented to the Board, and that if the Board does not approve his request, that he be advised of the next higher echelon that he may appeal to.  He states the he feels so strongly about this matter that he plans to pursue it up the chain of command if necessary.  In support of his application, he submits the enclosed personal statement, a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), and his retiree account statement.

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

On 31 January 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing 24 years and 2 days of active military service. 

The DD Form 214, issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation confirms that at the time of his separation he held the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9. 

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) and Data For Retired Pay (AGPZ Form 977) both show that the highest pay grade he attained and served in while on active duty was SGM/E-9.  The retirement order on file in the record confirms that his retired rank and pay grade was SGM/E-9.  In addition, there are no other documents on file that suggest that the applicant was ever formally appointed a CSM while he was serving on active duty. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 12 sets the polices and procedures for voluntary retirement of soldiers because of length of service.  It states, in pertinent part, that the active rank and pay grade a soldier holds on the date of his release from active duty for the purpose of retirement will be assigned as the retired grade unless they are eligible for a higher grade under some other provision of law. 

Department of the Army (DA) Circular 611-31 (Command Sergeants Major), dated 8 January 1968, announced that a DA selection board convened to consider nominees for selection as CSMs adjourned on 29 December 1967.  The board considered only the first increment of SGMs nominated by their commanders for entry into the CSM program as announced.  Two additional selection increments were scheduled to follow.  Selection of the second increment was scheduled for March 1968 and the third and largest increment by 30 July 1968.  The summary of board actions contained in this publication indicated that the number of nominees considered was 214 and the number of nominees selected was 192.  The applicant’s name was not included in the list of those selected as a CSM announced in this publication.  In addition, there were no provisions established for the automatic or retroactive assignment of the CSM rank title at the time the CSM program was implemented.  

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 records should be corrected to show the rank title of CSM based on his service in command positions as a SGM prior to the inception of the CSM program.  However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief. 

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was not selected for appointment to CSM while he was still on active duty, and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SGM in accordance with the applicable law and regulations in effect at the time.  Therefore, the Board finds no error related to his assigned retired rank title of SGM.  

3.  The Board notes and certainly recognizes the applicant’s outstanding performance of duty and service to this country, and that he served in command positions as a SGM.  However, these factors alone do not provide basis to change his rank title to CSM.  No retroactive provisions for assignment of the CSM rank title were established in the published law and regulations that implemented the CSM program.  Therefore, the Board finds no injustice related to the applicant’s assigned retired rank title and is compelled to deny the requested relief.  

4.  The applicant is advised that this action is not intended to question the validity of his contentions or to be a reflection on the quality of his service as a SGM.  It is taken solely in the interest of fairness, equity, and justice to all those who faced similar circumstances, and who were assigned the retired rank title of SGM prior to the inception of the CSM Program.  The applicant should also be aware that this Board acts for the Secretary of the Army, and its decision is final.

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

__RVO_  __RJW___  ___KYF__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074022	
SUFFIX		
RECON	2002/09/26	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.	129.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.