| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that that he be promoted and 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 was the acting senior drill instructor at Fort Bliss, Texas, and was placed on the local recommended promotion list for SFC/E-7. He states that upon his transfer to Korea no promotion was available and he was informed that he would be promoted to SFC/E-7 on the next promotion list. He further states that his Enlisted Efficiency Reports (EERs) substantiate his qualifications for his promotion to SFC/E-7. In support of his application, he submits copies of his EERs, a retirement order, and his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 October 1976, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 20 years, 1 month, and
6 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 of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) and was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Unit Organization Specialist) at the time of his REFRAD. It also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards: Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; Good Conduct Medal (6th Award); and National Defense Service Medal.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) and Data For Retired Pay (DA Form 3713) both show that the highest grade he attained while serving on active duty was SSG/E-6. In addition, there are no documents contained in the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that suggests he was ever selected for promotion to SFC/E-7 or on a Department of the Army promotion standing list during his active duty tenure.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 12 sets policies and procedures for voluntary retirement of soldiers because of length of service. Paragraph 12-3b states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement as directed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961 (10 USC 3961).
Paragraph 12-6 (Advancement on the Retired List) contains guidance on the advancement of soldiers on the Retired List. It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers are entitled to, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and satisfactorily served in while on active duty.
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 notes the applicant’s contention that he was on a recommended promotion list and should be promoted and advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. However, the Board finds the evidence of record and the independent evidence provided by the applicant does not provide an evidentiary basis to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record gives no indication that the applicant was ever selected for, on a promotion standing list to, or actually held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 while on active duty. It further confirms that he held and was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 which is the highest rank he was actually promoted to and held while on active duty. Thus, in accordance with the applicable law and regulation he is not entitled to a promotion or advancement on the Retired List to SFC/E-7 and the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.
3. In order to justify correction of a 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
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
__FNE__ __MHM__ __BJE __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059540 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/18 |
| 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 | CY2001 | 2001059788C070421
By law and regulation, retirement will be in the Regular or Reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement and advancement on the Retired List is only authorized when a member has held and satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher grade. In fact, the applicant’s own evidence, the LTG letter, confirms that the promotion recommendation submitted on him in 1968 was returned without action by the promotion authority. The Board also took special note of the fact that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075776C070403
It states, in pertinent part, that warrant officer and enlisted members of the Army are entitled, when their active service plus their service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily. By law, soldiers retire in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD for retirement, and in order to be advanced on the Retired List, a soldier must have satisfactorily served on active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063318C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank and pay grade in which he served on active duty under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964 (10 USC 3964), which in his case is SFC/E-7. On 23 January 1968, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting...
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 | 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 | CY2010 | 20100007609
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 September 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007609 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was placed on the Retired List as a sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. The orders show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SSG.
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 | 2002073643C070403
On 10 February 1982, after serving as a SSG/E-6 for almost 5 years, he was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7), which is the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty. On 23 May 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) convened to consider the applicant’s advancement on the Retired List, and it denied advancement on the Retired List based on the applicant’s general court-martial conviction and the resultant sentence which included his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055298C070420
Chapter 7 contained the Army’s enlisted promotion policy and paragraph 7-52 contains guidance on the 2 year service obligation incurred by individuals who were promoted to pay grades E-7, E-8, or E-9, which they were required to serve prior to non-disability retirement. It further stated that any member promoted to such a grade after submitting an application for retirement would be required to submit a written request to withdraw the retirement or to decline the promotion within 15 days...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002888C070205
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any orders or documents that indicate the applicant was ever selected for promotion to the pay grade E-8 by a properly constituted promotion selection board, or that he was promoted to a pay grade above E-7 by proper authority while serving on active duty. Further, by law, Soldiers are retired in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD. It also shows he was never selected for promotion to the pay grade...