MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064654

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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:  That his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect his pay grade as E-6. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That his pay grade of his DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect the pay grade of E-6 instead of E-5, as currently reflected on that document.  He further states that he was told at the time of separation that the change would occur automatically and that he would be provided a corrected DD 214.

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

He enlisted on 22 September 1982 and remained on active duty as a petroleum supply specialist through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 March 1989.

On 5 March 1991, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for dereliction of duty and disobeying lawful orders from a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-5, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 19 August 1991 he was released from active duty (REFRAD) in the pay grade of E-5 and was transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the pay grade of E-6, effective 20 August 1991.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD, indicates that his pay grade was E-5.

The applicant’s placement on the TDRL is based on a request submitted by the Physical Disability Agency to the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) in connection with his separation.  The AGDRB determined that the highest grade he had satisfactorily held was the pay grade of E-6 and voted unanimously to advance him on the Retired List in that grade.

On 27 October 1993, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and was placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) with a 30% disability rating for Schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated.

Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will be prepared to reflect the actual grade in which the individual is serving on the date of REFRAD or discharge.  Personnel who are placed on the TDRL will receive a DD Form 214 at the time they are REFRAD and placed on the TDRL.  However, if they are subsequently removed from the TDRL, a new DD Form 214 will not be issued to reflect placement on the PDRL or discharge.

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.  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.

2.  At the time the applicant was REFRAD he was serving in the pay grade of E-5 and his DD Form 214 correctly reflects that grade.  His advancement on the Retired List was the result of a grade determination that did not take effect until the day after his REFRAD.  Accordingly, there is no basis to correct his DD Form 214.

3.  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

__inw ___  __gjw ___  ___rjw __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064654	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000/corr 214	
2.  302	129.0000/pay gr	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.