MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200384239

	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. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster		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 military records be corrected to show the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, upon completion of his tour in Vietnam and prior to his separation from the Army he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he was promoted to, paid, and fulfilled the duties of a SGT/E-5.  He further states that while updating his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim, he noticed a difference in the pay grade listed in his pay vouchers and the one listed on his separation document (DD Form 214).  He claims the pay vouchers show he attained the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 prior to his separation.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214, 7 Military Pay Vouchers (DA Forms 2349), and an Allotment Authorization Form
(DA Form 1341).

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

On 12 June 1969, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), by reason of expiration term of service (ETS).  At the time of his separation, he had completed 3 years of active military service, and he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) to complete his military service obligation. 

Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that the highest rank and pay grade he was promoted to while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4).  There is no entry indicating that he was ever promoted to SGT/E-5.  Item 48 (Date of Audit) of this document confirms that he audited his record on 
31 January 1969, thereby, verifying the information contained on the DA Form 20 was correct on that date, which includes the promotion data in Item 33.  In addition, there are no orders or other documents on file in the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that give any indication that he was ever recommended, selected, or promoted to SGT/E-5 by a proper promotion authority.   

The DD Form 214, issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that at the time of his separation he held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4.  The applicant signed this document in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged), thereby verifying that the information contained in the separation document, to include his rank and pay grade, was correct at the time the DD Form 214 was prepared and issued on 12 June 1969. 

The seven DA Forms 2349 provided by the applicant indicate that he received military pay and allowances in the pay grade of E-5 from December 1968 through April 1969.  The DA Form 1341 he provided shows that he initiated an allotment to his wife while serving in the pay grade of E-5.

Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214.  It states, in effect, at the time, that the active grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation will be entered in item 4 (a and b).

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 request that his military records be corrected to show he was promoted to the rank of SGT/E-5.  However, although he provided seven DA Forms 2349 and a DA 1341 that seem to indicate he was promoted to SGT/E-5, the Board finds insufficient corroborating evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The Board noted and considered the DA Forms 2349 and DA 1341 provided by the applicant.  However, it is unable to reconcile these forms with the evidence of record.  The record confirms that the applicant verified the information in his DA Form 20, to include the promotion data showing he was a SP4/E-4, on 31 January 1969, more than 3 months after the date of the 
DA Form 2349 covering the pay period 1 through 30 November 1968.   

3.  Further, during his separation processing in June 1969, the applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 that listed his rank and pay grade as SP4/E-4, and there is no indication that he ever raised the issue of his promotion while he was still on active duty.  Finally, the Board finds his explanation that in updating his VA claims he noticed a difference in his pay vouchers and his 
DD Form 214 does not sufficiently explain the lack of corroborating evidence in the record, his failure to address the issue while he was still on active duty, or why he waited over 30 years to seek relief.  Therefore, the Board concludes there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief. 

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

___mdm_  __sac ___  __rd ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084239	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 310	131.0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.