| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank and pay grade in which he served satisfactorily on active duty.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) for almost 2 ½ years and subsequent to his reduction he was allowed to stay in the Army, be promoted back to staff sergeant/E-6
(SSG/E-6), and retire for length of service after completing 20 years of active military service.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He served on active duty a total of 20 years and 2 days and in 1991 was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 for the purpose of retirement. His 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
28 December 1981 and that this was the highest rank he held while on active duty.
The record also verifies that on 24 April 1984 the applicant was reduced to sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) as a result of a conviction by a special court-martial of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by having a sexual relationship with a trainee. It also shows that subsequent to this reduction he was promoted back to SSG/E-6 on 9 December 1985.
A properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) that was signed by the applicant on the date of his retirement is on file in the record. This document shows that on 30 April 1991 he was REFRAD for the purpose of retirement. It also verifies that he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the date of his separation and that on the following day he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.
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. They determined that his service as a SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory due to his being reduced as a result of his own misconduct by a special court-martial that convicted him of having a sexual relationship with a female trainee. The AGDRB finally voted that the applicant’s rank and pay grade on the Retired List should be SSG/E-6.
Amy Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 12 sets the policy and procedure for the voluntary retirement of soldiers based on length of service. It states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement.
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 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 SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory.
2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was reduced from the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 as a result of being convicted of a violation of the UCMJ by a special court-martial due to his own misconduct. Thus, the Board concludes that his service as a SFC/E-7 was rendered unsatisfactory and that relief is not warranted in this case.
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
__JHL___ __MDM__ __JAM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060306 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/04/30D |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 319 | 131.0900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2002 | 2002068052C070402
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. On 1 October 1990, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be retired on 30 September 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SPC/E-4. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005861
It states, in pertinent part, that retired Soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served on active duty when their active service plus service on the Retired List totals 30 years. The evidence further shows that the DASA (RB), after receiving the votes and recommendations of the members of the AGDRB, determined that the applicant's service in the grade of MSG was not satisfactory due to his own misconduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057713C070420
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 separation confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on the date of his separation. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002657
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he retired in the highest rank/grade he held while serving on active duty, sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 3964 provides that an enlisted member of the Regular 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...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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: