| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Ms. Gale Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Sherri V. Ward | Member | |
| Mr. Van B. Cunningham | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that at the time of his retirement he was advanced to the pay grade of E-5.
APPLICANT STATES: That orders from his commanding officer recommended and qualified him for advancement prior to his retirement. The applicant submitted a copy of his reassignment orders which states that he was eligible and recommended for promotion.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel was silent.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 June 1966, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.
On 26 August 1966, 31 October 1966, and 10 July 1967, he was advanced to the pay grades of E-2, E-3, and E-4, respectively.
On 6 June 1968, the applicant was injured by hostile forces while stationed in the Republic of Vietnam. This injury resulted in the amputation of his right leg.
On 22 February 1969, the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), after being found unfit for duty. He with given a disability rating of 60 percent. His Report of Separation indicates he had 2 years, 7 months and 25 days of creditable service.
On 31 May 1972, he was removed from TDRL, and permanently retired with an effective date of 1 June 1972, in the pay grade of E-4. Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, Pay Certification Section, which recommended that the applicant’s request be denied, stating that the applicant’s military personnel records does not indicate that he was ever promoted to a grade higher that specialist four.
Army Regulation 600-200, Chapter 7, then in effect, prescribes policy and procedures for promotion of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 7-4 states that promotion of enlisted personnel to grades E-3 through E-9 will be announced in routine orders. It further states that field grade commanders of any organization authorized a commander in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher could promote assigned personnel to pay grades E-5 and E-6, who equaled or exceeded an announced Department of the Army (DA) promotion point cut-off score.
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(s), it is concluded:
1. In order to justify the correction of military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.
2. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
3. There is no evidence in the available records to substantiate the applicant’s claim that he was promoted to pay grade E-5 prior to his retirement.
4. The Board notes that the applicant submitted a copy of his reassignment orders dated 20 June 1968, with blocks 5a and 5b checked, indicating he was qualified and recommended for promotion, however, there is no documentation in the applicant’s records to indicate that he was on an approved recommended list, or that he met or exceeded a promotion points cut-off score announced by DA.
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:
________ ________ __vbc___ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___gdp__ __svw___ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706530C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 31 May 1972, he was removed from TDRL, and permanently retired with an effective date of 1 June 1972, in the pay grade of E-4. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, Pay Certification Section, which recommended that the applicants request be denied, stating that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606684C070209
The PEB recommend that he be placed on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating. Continuation on the TDRL was precluded since the applicant had completed less than 20 years service and had a combined disability rating of less than 30 percent. The PEB recommended that he be separated from the Army with severance pay and placed on the PDRL based on a 10 percent disability rating.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012600
Letter Orders Number D-5-967, issued by Office of the Adjutant General on 27 May 1971, ordered his retirement in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 and placement on the TDRL with a combined rating of 90 percent, effective 7 June 1971. Medical facility commanders may consider patients for promotion under the normal promotion criteria of this chapter, together with the following guidance: (1) Individuals with recommended-list status for promotion to pay grade E-5 or E-6 resulting from selection by a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706529
On 18 January 1996, an informal PEB found the applicant physically unfit by reason of low back pain and recommended a disability rating of 20 percent and his separation with severance pay. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006805
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states that his general educational diploma (GED) was missing from his 201 file [military personnel records jacket] when he appeared before the promotion board. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: a supplemental letter, dated 6 March 2009; his GED test scores; a Standing List for Promotion to E-5, dated 23 November 1971; his DD Form 214 (Armed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059124C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of command sergeant major/E-9 (CSM/E-9) on the Retired List. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, the available evidence in this case contains no indication that the applicant was ever recommended or selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by a DA promotion board or that he was placed on the E-9 promotion standing list prior to his being REFRAD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708198
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 states that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306756
In support of his application the applicant submits a 1996 disability rating increase by the VA, copies of medical records of treatments subsequent to the Board’s 1995 decision and a personal statement. An advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from Army Review Board Agency’s, medical advisor that opined that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s contention and that at time of separation the applicant was properly diagnosed and rated for his condition. Although the rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015564
The applicant states, in effect, that he was on the promotion standing list for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 and desires to know if he was in fact promoted to the pay grade of E-5 before he was discharged. A review of the applicant's official records shows no evidence that the applicant was ever promoted to the pay grade of E-5 or that he ever made a Department of the Army announced cut-off score before he was REFRAD on 6 March 1972. The applicant has failed to show through the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709297
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 USAPDA found the...