MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 9 December 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: AC95-08711A
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.
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: Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by showing that he held the rank of sergeant.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that when he assumed the position as machine gunner he would be promoted to the rank of sergeant.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 16 August 1995 .
The applicant again submits his contentions that he was told he would receive the rank of sergeant when he assumed the position of machine gunner. In support of this contention he submits three statements from former soldiers who indicate that they were also told this and personally know that the applicant served as a machine gunner.
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. While the applicant may have held the position and responsibilities of a machine gunner at some point in his military career, there is no evidence to indicate that he was ever officially promoted to the rank of sergeant in either a temporary or permanent capacity.
2. In time of war or when a unit is under-manned it is common practice to fill a position with a person of lesser rank until such time as either a person of the proper rank is assigned or until the person holding the position is officially promoted. This may have been what happened in this instance and does not mandate a promotion to the rank normally necessary for the position.
3. Even if the applicant held the rank of sergeant at some point in his career, there is no availability evidence to show that he was separated from the Army in that rank.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
5. 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
___JN__ ___FNE__ ___TBR__ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
CASE ID
AC95-08711
SUFFIX
A
RECON
DATE BOARDED
19981209
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
129.00
2.
131.00
3.
4.
5.
6.
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00020
I thought that if Congress wanted to eliminate the shot and so many others had refused to take the shot then, there must be some serious issues with the Anthrax shot. At this point I began to set my life back on track and try to somehow move forward. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010426 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial that was determined...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010715
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 AR20070013172, on 4 March 2008. Additionally, World War II holders of the Combat Infantryman Badge received a monthly pay supplement known as combat infantry pay and holders of the Expert Infantryman Badge were entitled to expert infantry pay. While the sincerity of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02463
The applicant states that based on his completion of the requisite training and service as a B-24, Liberator, radio operator/gunner in Italy, he was eligible for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant prior to his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 18 November 1945, he was promoted to the grade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015082
The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the Arkansas Army National Guard with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduced to the rank of private/E-1. It states that an administrative discharge board was required, unless waived by the Soldier, when the separation authority considers discharge under other than honorable conditions would be appropriate and/or if the Soldier had 6 or more years of total military service. While the applicant may have had a...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02298
There was no contact with her commander in any form and she never received any guidance that a promotion to the rank of master sergeant would be non-recommended based on the reasons he provided to her in his non-recommendation letter. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her non-recommendation for promotion to master sergeant should be removed and her line 3 number reinstated. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020926
The applicant provides: * contested NCOER * Enlisted Record Brief * Army Directive 2012-3 (Army Retention Initiatives) * two letters of support * subsequent NCOER's * Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) Course Reservation Verification CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. His rater was the section leader, SSG J____ A. A____; his senior rater was the platoon sergeant, Sergeant First Class T____ L. F____; and his reviewer was the platoon leader, Second Lieutenant T____ A. L____. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018197
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090018197 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, a promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/pay grade E-9. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was promoted to SGM/pay grade E-9 prior to his retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001197C070208
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 AR1999019744 on 21 July 1999. The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. However, unless there was actually a vacancy and the appointment authority received an allocation that would have allowed it, he could not have been promoted to sergeant.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02852
Regarding the deferral and non-recommendation for promotion to senior master sergeant, evidence has not been presented which would lead the Board majority to believe his commander's actions were inappropriate or based on anything other than the applicant's own misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice concerning his request for promotion to the grade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000503
This NCOER shows: * his rater rated his 7 Army values as "Yes," his NCO responsibilities as "Success" or "Excellence," and his overall potential for promotion as "Fully Capable" * his senior rater rated his overall performance as "Successful/2" and his overall potential as "Superior/2" 6. This NCOER shows: * his rater rated his 7 Army values as "Yes," his NCO responsibilities as "Success" or "Excellence," and his overall potential for promotion as "Fully Capable" * his senior rater rated...