| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with a separation date of 2 April 1999, to show his rank as staff sergeant (SSG) and his pay grade as E-6.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 effective 1 March 1997. He submits a copy of his promotion order in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was serving on active duty as an armor crewman in the rank and pay grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 when he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 effective 1 March 1997.
On 19 June 1998, he was punished under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the offenses of willfully and wrongfully discharging a firearm outside of government quarters and being drunk and disorderly. The approved punishment included reduction to the pay grade of E-5, a forfeiture of pay which was suspended, and restriction and extra duty, which was also suspended.
Effective 2 April 1999, the applicant was separated from active duty in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E5 for parenthood. He had 8 years, 1 month, and 11 days creditable service. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was promoted again to the pay grade of E-6 prior to his separation from 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 applicant was reduced in rank and pay grade to SGT/E-5 prior to his separation from active duty with no evidence of record that he was again promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 prior to his separation.
2. 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.
3. 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
_gdp____ _wtm____ _rtd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061898 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001061898 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066582C070402
This office recommended that the applicant’s request to adjust his date of rank and effective date for promotion to SSG from 7 September 2000 to 1 June 1999, be denied. 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: The applicant was conditionally promoted to the rank of SSG/pay grade E-6 with a date of rank and effective date...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060665C070421
The applicant's medical records were reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board on 19 October 1999. On the date that promotion orders were published promoting him to the rank of Staff Sergeant, he was in a promotable status. On the effective date of his promotion, 1 October 1999, the applicant's records had not yet been reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board and a decision about his retainability in service had not yet been made, and therefore, the promotion orders should not have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068810C070402
Paragraph 12-3b(1) contains the general provisions of law governing retirement and it states in pertinent part, that ARNG soldiers serving on active duty at the time of their retirement, in a grade lower than their highest active duty enlisted grade, who were administratively reduced, not as a result of their own misconduct, will retire in the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served on active duty in accordance with Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3963 (10 USC 3963). ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058739C070421
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065442C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be granted a 15-year retirement under the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Enlisted Early Retirement Program (EERP). On 14 March 1996, the US MILGP, Enlisted Promotion Board convened to reviewed records and interview personnel for promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant (SSG).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084808C070212
The commander indicated that the reason for action was the applicant’s assault of a subordinate soldier. On 9 July 1997, the AG of the State of Virginia ARNG reviewed the applicant’s case. On 18 July 2001, the Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of the Virginia ARNG responded to an inquiry from the applicant in regard to the adverse actions that resulted from reduction board action, the violation of his due process rights during the reduction board proceedings, and reinstatement of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077106C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show that he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7). In the opinion of the Board, notwithstanding the TDY forms he provided, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient independent evidence to support his claim...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085415C070212
The applicant reentered the Regular Army for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1 on 1 October 1993. The evidence of record clearly shows that he was in a promotable status on 7 March 2002, when the orders were published promoting him to the rank and pay grade of SSG (E-6) effective date of 1 May 2002. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned to show that he was released from active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000064C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he held the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on the date of his separation, and that he be provided additional disability severance pay as a result. Paragraph 1-27 of the enlisted promotion regulation contains guidance on NCOES requirements for promotion and conditional promotion. In this case, the evidence of record confirms the applicant’s conditional promotion to SSG/E- 6 was revoked and he was removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081290C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record contains no indication that the applicant was ever recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6. Further, there is no indication that he was ever denied attendance at the BNCOC for MOS 88M or MOS 88N.