APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be advanced on the retired list to his USAR grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he retired from active service in the grade of chief warrant officer (CW4) on 1 March 1973 and should be advanced to his USAR grade on the retired list.

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

He entered active duty on 22 October 1942 and was discharged on 26 October 1950 in the grade of sergeant first class.  He was commissioned a second lieutenant USAR and remained on active duty as a commissioned officer until 25 August 1956 when he was separated in the grade of captain.  He served in the USAR until his return to active duty on 27 June 1958 as a warrant officer.  Thereafter, he remained on continuous active duty until his retirement effective 1 March 1973 in the grade of CW4 after more than 30 years of service.  At the time of his retirement he also held the USAR grade of LTC.

Army Regulation 635-100, Officer Personnel, pertaining to the separation and retirement of officers, provides in pertinent part, for the advancement of warrant officers to higher grades when his or her active service (plus service on the retired list) totals 30 years.  Any retired warrant officer of the Army is entitled to be advanced on the retired list to the highest commissioned grade he or she served satisfactorily on active duty as determined by the Secretary of the Army.

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.  Although the applicant held the grade of LTC in the USAR at the time he retired, the evidence of record does not show that he served on active duty as a LTC, which is a perquisite for his advancement to that grade on the retired list.

2. 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 the aforementioned requirement

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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director