MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081518

	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:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 to the pay grade of E-8. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served in a first sergeant/E-8 (1SG/E-8) position from 1966 to 1967.

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

On 31 January 1970, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement.  At the time of his separation, he had completed 21 years, 1 month, and 11 days of active military service. 

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms, in Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) on 15 February 1969, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he attained while serving on active duty.  In addition, there are no orders or other documents contained in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that give any indication that he was ever selected for, promoted to, held, or served in a higher rank and pay grade while he was serving on active duty.

A Data For Retired Pay (AGPZ Form 977), prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing, contains the entry SFC/E-7 in Item 2 (Retired Grade), Item 7 (Highest Grade Held), and Item 18 (Retired Pay Grade), which verifies that this was the rank and pay grade he held on the date of his REFRAD and was the highest rank and pay grade he was promoted to and held while serving on active duty.  This document further confirms that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on 1 February 1970. 

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the date of his separation and that he was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 72B (Communication Center Specialist).

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the Regular Army or Reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement, as prescribed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961, which provides the legal authority for retirement grades.  

Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964, provides the legal authority for advancement on the Retired List.  It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers are entitled to, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 
30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty as determined by the Secretary of the service concerned.  
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 contentions that he should be promoted to the pay grade of E-8 because he served in an authorized 1SG/E-8 position from 1966 to 1967.  However, it finds this factor alone does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to warrant promotion. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained and held while serving on active duty was SFC/E-7.  There is no indication that he was ever selected for, promoted to, or held a higher rank and pay grade during his active duty service.  Therefore, the Board finds no basis to promote the applicant to the pay grade of E-8 at this time.  Further, given the applicant’s record also gives no indication that he was ever selected for, promoted to, or held a higher rank and pay grade while serving on active duty.  Therefore, the Board also finds no evidentiary basis to support promoting the applicant to the pay grade of E-8 at this time. 

3.  In addition, by law, in order to be advanced on the Retired List it must be determined that a member satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher grade.  In order to receive a satisfactory service determination under this statutory provision, a member must have been promoted to, held, and satisfactorily served in a higher pay grade while on active duty.  

4.  The applicant’s retirement processing packet clearly shows that he requested and his retirement was approved in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7.  It also verifies that he was placed on the retired list in that rank and pay grade.  Finally, it confirms that SFC/E-7 was the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained, held, and in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty.  Thus, the Board also finds no basis for advancing him to the pay grade of E-8 on the Retired List.  

5.  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.

6.  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

___JHL__  __RVO__  __ECP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081518	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/27	
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.