Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706027
Original file (9706027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 April 1999
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-06027
                                    AR1999018961

         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. Loren G. Harrell Director
Mr. David H. Keller Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Karen L. Wolff Chairperson
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian Member
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III 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: That his retirement grade be changed from chief warrant officer 2 (W-2) to his highest commissioned officer grade held on active duty, captain (O-3).

APPLICANT STATES: When he went through retirement outprocessing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he asked when his retirement grade would be upgraded to captain and was told at the 30 year point. When he reached the 30 year mark, he called the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) to find out why they had not advanced him on the retired list. The verbal and later written response was that he originally should have retired as a captain, based on his 14-plus years active commissioned service. He encloses a copy of the letter from ARPERCEN concerning his retirement grade.

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

He was commissioned a Regular Army second lieutenant, Artillery, on 5 June 1965. He attained the rank of captain on 9 June 1972.

On 27 November 1979 the applicant was discharged for failure to be selected for permanent promotion. He was simultaneously appointed and called to active duty as a Reserve warrant officer. He had 14 years, 5 months and 23 days of active commissioned service.

The applicant voluntarily retired from active duty on 1 August 1985 at Fort Bragg as a chief warrant officer 2. He had a total of 20 years, 1 month and 26 days of active creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-100, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of officer personnel. Chapter 4 of that regulation establishes procedures for the implementation of laws and policies governing the nondisability retirement of officers, specifically Title 10 of the United States Code. It provides, in pertinent part, that unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a warrant officer retires in the grade held on the day before the date of retirement, or in any higher warrant officer grade served on active duty satisfactorily for at least 31 days. When his or her active service (plus service on the retired list) totals 30 years, any retired warrant officer of the Army is entitled to be advanced on the retired list to the highest commissioned grade he or she served satisfactorily on active duty.




A 30 December 1996 ARPERCEN letter informs the applicant that he should have retired as a captain. In the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted the Army Reserve Personnel Command and was informed by an official of the Retired Pay Division that the letter is incorrect and the applicant should have been advanced on the retired list as he initially requested. The staff member was also informed that the person who signed the letter no longer works there.

On 4 February 1999 the Army Grade Determination Review Board determined the highest grade in which the applicant served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of retired pay was captain (O-3).

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 applicant’s retirement in pay grade W-2 was appropriate in accordance with applicable law and regulations, since that was the grade he held on the day before his date of retirement.

2. The applicant should have been advanced to the rank of captain when his active service and service on the retired list totaled 30 years. The letter from ARPERCEN advising him that he should have retired as a captain does not conform with the law and governing regulations, and is incorrect.

3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

(Note: The Support Division, Army Review Boards Agency, St Louis, is directed to coordinate with AR-PERSCOM, Retired Pay Division, to advance the applicant on the retired list to the rank of captain effective 5 June 1995.)

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

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director



INDEX

CASE ID AC97-06027/AR1999018961
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 19990414
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 129.04
2. 136.00
3.
4.
5.
6.



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706027C070209

    Original file (9706027C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    When his or her active service (plus service on the retired list) totals 30 years, any retired warrant officer of the Army is entitled to be advanced on the retired list to the highest commissioned grade he or she served satisfactorily on active duty. The applicant’s retirement in pay grade W-2 was appropriate in accordance with applicable law and regulations, since that was the grade he held on the day before his date of retirement. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711245

    Original file (9711245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710119

    Original file (9710119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) within 90 days of his retirement. APPLICANT STATES : She was denied SBP benefits because the FSM’s election was not made within 90 days of his receiving his notification of eligibility to receive...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710490

    Original file (9710490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706530

    Original file (9706530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711266

    Original file (9711266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: That opinion noted that the applicant was married with children on the date of his retirement even though he may have been in the process of a divorce at that time. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708920

    Original file (9708920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710212

    Original file (199710212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had served 3 years and 14 days of total active service before being honorably discharge on 27 February 1995 to accept a commission as a warrant officer and to attend the warrant officer basic course. On 24 July 1996 the applicant tendered his unqualified resignation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 3, paragraph 3-5.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707674

    Original file (9707674.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board considered the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711722

    Original file (9711722.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to void his discharge and to show he was selected and promoted to major. Included with his application are memorandums from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) showing the reason he was not selected was based on two evaluation reports showing “Do Not Promote”, and also based on the lack of a baccalaureate degree. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: