IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 December 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120009356 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his retired grade to show he retired as a major/0-4. 2. The applicant states that with the exception of one incident, outlined in the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) he received, he served honorably for more than 21 years. He states he was the one who brought the incident to the attention of his superiors and had he not, it never would have been known by the Army. He claims he took full responsibility for the incident and accepted his punishment. He states the Army believed he was serving honorably enough to deploy him for a second year after the incident and placed him in positions of responsibility, where he served more than adequately. He states that to give him this additional punishment after all this time is incredibly unfair and unjust. 3. The applicant provides the documents identified in his application in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The record shows, after prior service in an enlisted status, the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 18 August 1999. He entered active duty in that status on 23 January 2000. 2. The record shows he was promoted to first lieutenant on 25 October 2000, to captain on 1 October 2002, and to major on 1 May 2009. 3. On 12 May 2010, the applicant received a GOMOR for cheating on the National Certification Examination for Nurse Anesthetists on 5 January 2010. The imposing general officer (GO) stated the applicant was reprimanded for his actions and that the applicant’s decision to cheat on a certification examination was unacceptable and that these actions fell far below what the Army expects of an officer and health care professional. The GO indicated the applicant exhibited tremendous immaturity and a serious lack of integrity which caused him to question the applicant’s fitness for continued service. 4. On 21 March 2012, the Commanding General (CG), 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, initiated elimination action on the applicant for misconduct and moral professional dereliction. 5. The applicant requested retirement in lieu of elimination and on 21 March 2012, the CG, 101st Airborne Division, recommended approval of the applicant’s request and that the applicant be retired in the grade of captain given that was the last grade in which the applicant served honorably. 6. On 10 May 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards), after review by the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), approved the applicant’s retirement in lieu of elimination and directed the applicant be placed on the Retired List in the grade of captain/0-3E. 7. The applicant provides the packet he submitted to the AGDRB requesting retirement as a major/0-4, which included supporting statements by two colonels who recommended the applicant be retired in the grade of major/0-4 based on his honorable service to the country and the Army while holding that grade with the exception of one minor and isolated incident. 8. Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations) establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the AGDRB and other organizations delegated authority to make grade determinations on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. It states, in part, that a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive. The AGDRB will consider each case on its own merits. Considerations include the nature and severity of misconduct and the grade at which the misconduct was committed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s request to correct his retirement grade to major/0-4 has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The evidence of record confirms the AGDRB appropriately considered the applicant’s case and determined his misconduct which took place while he was serving as a major/0-4 was severe enough that his prior service in that grade was not sufficiently meritorious to support his retirement in that grade. As a result, absent any evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant to show any error or injustice in the AGDRB process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X___ ___X____ 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120009356 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120009356 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1