| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he made a serious error in judgement. He states that his quality of service before and after his error in judgement was outstanding and he has been sufficiently punished in the time that has passed and would now like to be promoted back to SFC/E-7. In support of his application he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 October 1991, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 20 years and 20 days of active military service.
The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on the date of his separation. It also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards: Good Conduct Medal (6th Award); National Defense Service Medal (1st OLC); and Army Commendation Medal.
The applicant’s record also reveals that on 8 July 1984 he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E7 and that this was the highest rank he held while on active duty. However, on 16 March 1988, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of the wrongful use of marijuana on two occasions and was sentenced to be reduced to SSG/E-6 and to forfeit $967.00.
On 26 September 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. The AGDRB based their denial on the fact that he was convicted of marijuana use by a SPCM and that this diminished the quality of his service as a SFC/E-7 sufficiently to render his service in that rank and pay grade unsatisfactory.
Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, provides that a retired enlisted member or warrant officer of the Army who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Army.
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 Board concurs with the findings of the AGDRB that the applicant’s active duty service in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory due to his conviction of marijuana use by a SPCM. As a result, the Board concludes that he should be retained on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6.
2. By violating the Army’s policy not to possess or use illegal drugs the applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a noncommissioned officer (NCO). As a senior NCO he had the duty to support and abide by the Army’s drug policy and by using illegal drugs he knowingly risked his military career. The Board finds this misconduct clearly rendered his active duty service in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 unsatisfactory.
3. Therefore, the Board finds that the highest rank and pay grade in which the applicant satisfactorily served on active duty was SSG/E-6 and it concludes he should be remain on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.
4. 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
__MKP___ __KAK__ __RTD__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057713 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/02 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018426
On 1 March 2004, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered his request for advancement on the Retired List to E-8, as the highest grade he satisfactorily held. The evidence or record shows he was convicted by a special court-martial for wrongful marijuana usage. Army Regulation 15-80 provides that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to a lower grade results from misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020058
The applicant requests, in effect: * advancement on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * a personal appearance before the Board 2. On 8 September 2000, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), in response to his request for advancement on the Retired List, determined the highest grade in which he had served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of retired pay was E-6. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to E-6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068467C070402
On 11 February 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. 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: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to SSG/E-6 due to his own misconduct as a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060306C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 4 October 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be advanced to SFC/E-7 on the Retired List but after reviewing his overall record of service, the Board concludes it concurs with the AGDRB determination that his service as a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076732C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 1 December 1969, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 30 November 1970, in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6. The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained while serving on active duty was SSG/E-6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057694C070420
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) confirms, in block 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on 21 February 1975, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty. On 24 August 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 on the Retired List. The evidence of record confirms that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077017C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his REFRAD for retirement confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on that date. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012391
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be advanced to sergeant first class (SFC)/pay grade E-7 on the U.S. Army Retired List. Based on the evidence of record, the applicant was conditionally promoted to the rank of SFC/pay grade E-7 with the understanding that he was required to complete ANCOC to maintain his promotion. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant him the requested relief to correct his record to show he was retired in the higher rank of SFC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024097
It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability that resulted in retirement. In accordance with statutory and regulatory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019999
He adds that he believes the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) should advance him on the retired list to 1SG/E-8 and that this Board should refer to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3963. On 31 January 2007, the applicant petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for advancement on the retired list. He subsequently accepted a voluntary reduction to SFC/E-7 on 27 December 1988 and was ordered to full-time National Guard duty, where he remained in the...