IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 March 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010952 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, in effect, advancement on the retired list to the highest rank he satisfactorily held, which was the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 instead of sergeant (SGT)/E-5. 2. He states he held the rank/pay grade of SSG/E-6 for 6 years and 6 months, which was his highest grade. He was demoted to SGT/E-5 approximately 9 months prior to his retirement date and he is receiving SGT/E-5 retirement pay. 3. He provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Amendment Orders 297-0159, dated 24 October 2013 * Retirement Orders 253-0131, dated 10 September 2013 * Seven DD Forms 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document), dated 18 February 1993, 20 June 1996, 30 December 1997, 10 February 1999, 1 May 2001, 23 May 2004, and 24 April 2008 * Report of Medical Examination, dated 18 February 1993 * Standard Form 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 24 April 2014 * Fax Header Sheet, dated 4 March 2014, addressed to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service with attached documents including two letters, Enlisted Record Brief, Summary of Retirement Pay Account, promotion orders from private first class/E-3 through SSG, and a DD Form 214 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 September 1993 and he continued to serve on active duty through a series of reenlistments. 2. He provided Orders 201-00275, dated 19 July 2000, published by Headquarters, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Riley, KS, which show he was promoted from corporal/E-4 to SGT with an effective date and date of rank of 19 July 2000. 3. He also provided Orders 283-302, dated 10 October 2006, published by Detachment C, 38th Personnel Services Battalion, which show he was promoted from SGT to SSG with an effective date and date of rank of 1 October 2006. 4. On 27 April 2013, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for signing a false official statement, forgery, and aiding and abetting, assisting or encouraging a specialist to unlawfully enter an office with the intent to commit forgery. His punishment consisted of reduction from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 and extra duty for 14 days. 5. He provided Orders 253-0131 published by Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, TX, on 10 September 2013, which show he was released from active duty effective 31 January 2014. On the following date, he was placed on the retired list in the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5. He completed 20 years, 4 months, and 7 days of active military service. 6. He provided a summary of his retired pay account, dated 14 February 2014, which shows he is being paid in the rank of SGT. 7. Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) and Grade Determinations) establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the AGDRB. Most grade determinations do not require action by the AGDRB, or the exercise of discretion by other authorities, because they are automatic grade determinations that result from the operation of law and this regulation. a. 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. b. Paragraph 2-5 outlines grade determination considerations. It states that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause; owing to misconduct; caused by NJP pursuant to Article 15 of the UCMJ; or the result of the sentence of a court-martial. It also states that service will be considered unsatisfactory if there is sufficient unfavorable information to establish that the Soldier's service in the grade in question was unsatisfactory. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant served on active duty from 24 September 1993 to 31 January 2014. 2. The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 October 2006. 3. The applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ on 27 April 2013. As a result of this NJP, he was reduced to SGT/E-5 effective 27 April 2013. 4. Orders were published that show the applicant retired from active duty on 31 January 2014 and he was placed on the retired list in the rank of SGT/E-5 on 1 February 2014. At the time of his retirement, he had completed 20 years, 4 months, and 7 days of active service. 5. Army Regulation 15-80 provides that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to the lower grade is the result of NJP pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ. Accordingly, his service in the rank of SSG/E-6 should be determined to have been unsatisfactory. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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) AR20140010952 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010952 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1