PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           21 February 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064029

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his request that he be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade he satisfactorily held, i.e., pay grade E-6.  He makes no additional statement.

3.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 24 April 2001 (docket number AR2001052882).

4.  On 11 April 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in grade E-6 due to his general court-martial conviction for photographing a nude, under 16-year-old female, and indecent sexual acts and sodomy with that child.  The AGDRB determined he served satisfactorily in grade E-5 for the purpose of computation of retired pay.  However, because the AGDRB did not grant full relief, its determination was forwarded to this Board for consideration and was never forwarded to the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command for implementation.

5.  On 24 April 2001, this Board concurred with the AGDRB that pay grade E-5 was the highest grade the applicant satisfactorily held while on active duty.  However, it found that there was no basis for granting the applicant’s request apparently in the belief that the AGDRB’s action would be implemented.  The end result was that no action to advance him to grade E-5 on the retired list was taken.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  This Board also concurs with the AGDRB that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in pay grade E-6 as evidenced by his reduction by a general court-martial conviction but that he did serve satisfactorily in pay grade E-5.

2.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was advanced on the retired list in the rank and grade of Sergeant, E-5 after his active service plus his service on the retired list totaled 30 years and that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service pay to the applicant all retired pay due as a result of this correction.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__gdp___  __tap___  __mhm___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			George D. Paxson
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064029	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.09	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.