RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000132


      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             |
|     |Ms. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of an earlier request that he be
restored to the highest pay grade (staff sergeant, SSG/E-6) he held while
on active military service.

2.  The applicant states his application should be reconsidered based on
the attached letter from a retired sergeant first class.

3.  The applicant provides a letter, dated 2 November 2004, from a retired
sergeant first class at the time in question.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003098942, on 14 September 2004.

2.  The retired sergeant first class attests that he has known the
applicant for over 40 years as a childhood friend, a professional Soldier,
and now as a civilian. He states that in January 1988 he (the retired
sergeant first class) was assigned as the personnel staff noncommissioned
officer for the 1st Battalion, 75th Field Artillery in Germany, a unit
whose mission priority meant no concern, compassion, or care for a
Soldier's situation.  He points out that the applicant experienced
turbulent times while they were assigned together:  (1) the applicant
arrived on compassionate assignment orders while the unit was preparing for
a field exercise and he had to get his Turkish wife housed in four days;
(2) during a road march, the applicant lost control of the M577 he was
driving, ran off the road, hit a tree, and injured his back; (3) while on
leave to visit his sick mother, an unforeseen financial situation occurred
and the applicant had to stay longer than his approved leave allowed and
his command reported him absent without leave even though he ensured he was
accounted for militarily by attaching himself to Fort Bragg, North
Carolina; and (4) the applicant's eyesight deteriorated and he needed
glasses.

3.  The applicant's submission is new evidence which will be considered by
the Board.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1974.  He was
promoted to SSG/E-6 on 5 July 1981.  On 23 November 1983, the applicant was
reduced in rank to SGT/E-5 as the result of nonjudicial punishment (being
disrespectful toward a sergeant first class).
5.  The applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 12 November 1985.

6.  On 24 February 1992, the applicant was barred from reenlistment under
the Qualitative Management Program.  On 5 November 1992, the applicant's
appeal was denied by the Standby Advisory Board.  He was granted an
enlistment extension to achieve retirement eligibility; however, he had to
be qualified and retirement must take place no later that 31 August 1994.

7.  On 29 April 1994, the applicant was reduced in rank to SGT/E-5 as the
result of nonjudicial punishment (using marijuana).

8.  On 17 May 1994, authority was granted to retain the applicant beyond
his approved retirement date for the purpose of completion of a Physical
Evaluation Board.  On 20 September 1994, the applicant was retired by
reason of physical disability.  He was placed on the retired list effective
21 September 1994 in the rank of SGT/E-5.

9.  Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, provides, in pertinent
part, that enlisted personnel who retire by reason of length of service may
be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held on active
duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completing 30 years
of service.  This service may consist of combined active service and
service in the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired).

10.  Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade
Determinations) established policies, procedures, and responsibilities of
the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) and other organizations
delegated authority to make grade determinations on behalf of the Secretary
of the Army.  It states, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel being
processed for physical disability separation or disability retirement, not
currently serving in the highest grade served, will be referred to the
AGDRB for a grade determination prior to separation or retirement.
Paragraph 2-5b(3) states that service in the highest grade or intermediate
grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when
reversion to a lower grade was caused by nonjudicial punishment pursuant to
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 15.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

The letter provided by the retired sergeant first class does not show the
applicant's service while serving in the rank of SSG/E-6 was satisfactory.
Since the governing regulation states that service in the highest grade or
intermediate grade normally would be considered to have been unsatisfactory
when reversion to a lower grade was caused by nonjudicial punishment, and
the applicant was reduced in rank on two separate occasions as the result
of nonjudicial punishment while serving in the rank of SSG/E-6, there is no
basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

SK_____  BE______  RD_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2003098942, dated 14 September 2004.




            ___Stanley Kelley_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000132                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |20040914                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |129.0400                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]