| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) and that he be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that a grade determination to determine the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served on active duty was not accomplished at the time he was placed on the TDRL. He claims this grade determination should have happened given he twice attained the rank of
SSG/E-6 during his active duty tenure and had served in that grade for a total of five years. In support of his application, he submits copies of the following documents: TDRL retirement order; Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627); Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings
(DA Form 199); and two separate SSG promotion orders.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He continuously served on active duty from 28 December 1981 until 22 October 1996, at which time he was honorably separated by reason of temporary disability and placed on the TDRL. The order authorizing his placement on the TDRL confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) on that date and that he would be placed on the TDRL in that rank and pay grade.
The available records confirm that the highest rank the applicant attained while serving on active duty was SSG/E-6. He was initially promoted to that rank on
1 May 1989 and was reduced to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on 20 August 1990. This reduction date is confirmed by date of rank entries in the record; however, the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to reason for his first reduction are not on file.
On 1 November 1992, the applicant was again promoted to SSG/E-6 and on
16 April 1996, he was again reduced to SGT/E-5. This reduction was the result of his acceptance of NJP on 16 April 1996, for fraternizing with a SGT/E-5. The available record contain no evidence of acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition performed by the applicant during either of the periods he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6.
On 25 September 1996, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., to evaluate the applicant’s chronic major depression and asthma medical condition. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit for further service and recommended a combined disability rating of 40% and that the applicant be placed on the TDRL and the applicant concurred with the PEB recommendations.
The US Army Physical Disability Agency approved the PEB’s findings and recommendations and on 22 October 1996, the applicant was released from active duty and placed on the TDRL, in the rank of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5), after completing a total of 14 years, 9 months, and 24 days of active Federal service.
On 24 April 2001, the applicant’s medical condition was reevaluated by a PEB and it determined his condition had stabilized for rating purposes. The PEB recommended that he be removed from the TDRL with a 10% disability rating and that he be separated with severance pay. The applicant concurred with the PEB recommendation and the US Army Physical Disability Agency approved the PEB’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, on 4 May 2001, he was honorably discharged, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, by reason of physical disability with severance pay.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1372(3) governs the grade upon retirement of any member retired for physical disability. This law provides, pertinently, that a member who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 or 1204 of this title, or whose name is placed on the temporary disability retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of this title, is entitled to the highest temporary grade or rank in which he served satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the armed force from which he is retired.
Army Regulation 635-5 establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), the board tasked by the Secretary of the Army to conduct grade determinations. Chapter 1, paragraph 5, states, in pertinent part, the AGDRB will review cases and determine the highest grade in which a soldier has served satisfactorily for purposes of service/physical disability retirement, computation of retired pay, or separation for physical disability. Paragraph 7 (Unsatisfactory Service) states, in pertinent part, that generally service will not be considered to have been satisfactory when reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, due to misconduct, or caused by NJP.
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 file is absent a formal grade determination made by the AGDRB prior to the applicant’s release from active duty and placement on the TDRL. In lieu of a formal grade determination rendered by the AGDRB, this Board evaluated his record to render the satisfactory service determination required by law and regulation.
2. By regulation, in making a satisfactory service determination, generally service will not be considered to have been satisfactory when reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, due to misconduct, or caused by NJP.
3. In this case, the evidence of record confirms the applicant was twice reduced from the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 for cause and that his service as a SSG/E-6 was undistinguished. Therefore, the Board finds that his service as a SSG/E-6 was not satisfactory and that the highest rank and pay grade in which he satisfactorily served was SGT/E-5. Finally, the Board concludes that SGT/E-5 was the proper grade assignment on the TDRL and as a result relief is not warranted in this case.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for grating 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
__CLA__ __AAO__ __HBO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058739 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/30 |
| 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 | CY2015 | 20150000528
The applicant states: * he does not believe the Board had all the evidence to make a proper determination of his case * he performed in the rank of SSG successfully; he challenges anyone to read his records and disagree * he performed the duties on three different occasions as a sergeant first class (SFC) and he was rated top block and among the best * he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal in that rank and he served 14 years in that rank * he does not believe one incident means his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014000
The applicant requests, in effect, to be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the highest grade he satisfactorily held for the purpose of computation of disability retirement. The applicant states the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) found the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served, for the purpose of computation of disability retirement/separation pay, was staff sergeant (SSG)/ E-6. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008675
The applicant states: * On 25 June 2010, he was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 15, which resulted in a reduction in grade from E-6 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * The punishment was unjust and unreasonable based on the charges, his performance, and Army background * There was no corrective action taken and his unit never recognized his illness which eventually led to him being hospitalized and medically retired * He held the grade of E-6 since 2007 and performed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022638
He provided his: * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) results * Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) results * Memorandum for a Disability Grade Determination CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The effective date of pay grade shows 30 June 2009. Notwithstanding the determination made by the AGDRB on 29 June 2010, Army Regulation 15-80 states that the circumstances pertinent to whether a Soldiers service is found satisfactory may include medical reasons, which may have been a contributing or a decisive...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010831
On 28 August 2012, the USAPDA requested the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) review the applicant's case for determination of the highest grade satisfactorily served for the purpose of computation of retirement or separation pay. On 9 October 2012, the AGDRB determined the highest grade in which the applicant served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of disability retirement/separation pay was his grade on the date of separation. Therefore, there is sufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008528
On 27 August 2012, as part of his medical retirement proceedings, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered the applicant's grade for the TDRL. On 31 August 2012, a paralegal specialist stated the applicant was requesting that the battalion commander take supplemental action by reducing the applicant's punishment. He accepted the punishment without appealing the commander's decision in the NJP proceedings.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014758C071029
Chester A. Damian | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It states, in pertinent part, that a commissioned officers of the Army who retires will be retired in the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily for not less than six months. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to CPT on 1 January 1990, while serving on active duty, and that he served in that grade both on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023060
The applicant provides: * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 7 June 2009 * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 27 August 2009 * Orders 261-1314, dated 18 September 2009 * DA Form 199, dated 29 April 2011 * Orders D126-06, dated 6 May 2011 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 currently shows he was retired due to temporary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010603
Orders D063-37, issued by the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency, dated 4 March 2010, removed the applicant from the TDRL and permanently retired her in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 effective 4 March 2010 with a 60 percent combined disability rating. The NGB Retirements Branch concurs with this recommendation to correct her retirement rank/grade from SGT/E-5 to SSG/E-6 and authorize all back pay and allowances based on the correct effective date of rank. As a result, the Board recommends...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003923
The applicant states he received an Article 15 due to an arrest for disorderly conduct. The PEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with reexamination in October 2011. After a review of his official records including his PEB and the Article 15, the AGDRB determined the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served for the purpose of disability retirement was E-4 which was the grade he held at the time of retirement.