MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074206

	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	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 promoted and advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) or master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discriminated against in receiving a promotion while serving in the military.  He states that he served successfully in the United States Air Force (USAF), the United States Navy (USN) Reserve from 1954 through 1976, and joined the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 
3 February 1979, where he served until 1997.  He states that at the staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) promotion board, the unit sergeant major felt he lacked promotion potential, and prior to his promotion he had to complete correspondences courses and pass an eye examination before he was finally promoted over the objections of the sergeant major.  He states that he completed the requirements to be promoted to SFC/E-7 by attending the National Guard Bureau NCO Academy and attaining a bachelor of science degree in management.  However, he was still passed over for promotion to SFC/E-7, which he believes was the result of the unit sergeant major still being upset over the fact that he was overridden when the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6.  The applicant claims that the sergeant major pressured his supervisors to keep him off the promotion list to SFC/E-7.  He further states that he never received a bad evaluation report and achieved all the requirements for promotion.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his Department of the Army official photograph.  

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

After previously serving in the USAF and USN Reserve, on 3 February 1979 when he joined the ARNG.  He continuously served in that status through intermittent periods of annual and active duty for training until being transferred to the Retired Reserve in 1997.

The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he attained during his service in the ARNG was SSG/E-6.  The applicant completed over 20 years of qualifying service for retirement and was issued a  “20 Year Letter” confirming his eligibility for retired pay at age 60.  

On 4 May 1997, he was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6.  On 4 May 1997, the applicant turned age 60 and he is currently receiving retired pay as a SSG/E-6.  

Army Regulation 135-180 implements the statutory authorities governing the granting of retired pay to soldiers and former Reserve Component (RC) soldiers. Chapter 2 states, in pertinent part, that the Retired Activities Directorate, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) will screen each retirement applicant’s records to determine the highest grade held by him or her during his/her military service.  

Paragraph 2-11c of the regulation further provides that the retired grade of an enlisted member transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged on or after 
25 February 1975, will be the highest grade held while on active duty or in an reserve enlisted status for at least 185 days or 6 calendar months.  Coordination with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) confirms that the applicant is receiving retired pay in the pay grade of E-6.

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 he was discriminated against in receiving a promotion while serving in the military and as a result, his retired grade should be upgraded.  However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s retirement stipulated that qualified Reserve members would be retired in the highest grade satisfactorily held for 185 days or 6 calendar months, and that the Retired Activities Directorate, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) would  screen each retirement applicant’s records to determine the highest grade satisfactorily held during military service for the purpose of retired pay. 

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant was promoted to, held, and satisfactorily served in while serving in the ARNG was SSG/E-6.  His record further verifies that his transfer to the Retired Reserve and processing for retired pay was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.  Lacking independent evidence to prove the applicant’s discrimination allegations, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to show he is entitled to a higher retired grade.  Therefore, it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.  

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

__RVO__  __MKP  _  __AAO __ DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074206	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/01	
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.	129.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.