MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 December 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-06530
AR19980002358
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: 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 applicants request be denied, stating that the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 | 9706530
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2013 | 20130011270
The applicant states, in effect: * he is a wounded warrior, serving at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) * he appeared before the SSG promotion board on 2 August 2012 and was recommended for promotion by the board with a total of 365 points * his points were inaccurately calculated, as the promotions clerk erroneously omitted 19 months of deployment service, equaling 38 points, and an additional 54 points from across other categories * after the August 2012 SSG promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018725
The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he responded to the effect that the Board should consider whether he would have attained the required number of points during the period he was hospitalized to be promoted and not whether he submitted the documentation or whether he was present for the recomputation. It provided that promotion recomputations for personnel serving in pay grade E-5 would be conducted in May using records dated as of the last day in April and...
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 | CY2013 | 20130016992
The applicant states at the time of his application he was in the medical evaluation board (MEB) process. The applicant provides: * U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), Fort Sam Houston, TX Memorandum for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 17 April 2013 * Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum for U.S. Army, Promotion Work Centers, dated 18 April 2013, subject: Department of the Army Promotion Point Cutoff Scores for 1 May 2013 and Junior Enlisted Issues for the Active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013155
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1372 (Grade on Retirement Physical Disability, Members of the Armed Forces), states that unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, any member of an Armed Force who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 or 1204 of this title, or whose name is placed on the TDRL under section 1202 or 1205 of this title, is entitled to the grade equivalent to the highest of the following: * the grade or rank in which he is serving...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002340
The applicant states that he was eligible for automatic promotion in September 2008; however, because he was in the Army overweight program from January 2008 to August 2008, his promotion was flagged. Paragraph 3-17 of Army Regulation 600-8-19 states, in pertinent part, that each month, Active Army Soldiers in all MOSs who have 46 months TIS (to become eligible for promotion at 48 months), 10 months TIG (to become eligible for promotion at 12 months), are otherwise not ineligible in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003698
There are no orders or other evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that shows he was promoted to pay grade E-5. The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-5 because he was recommended for promotion, but when he was reassigned his records were lost and, as a result, he was not promoted. c. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-5 during the period of service under review.