| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | ||
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that her retired pay grade E-8 be corrected to E-9.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that she was selected for promotion to pay grade E-9 by the 1998 Active Guard and Reserve Board and should be allowed to retire in that pay grade. In support of her application, she submits the following documents: separation document (DD Form 214); retirement orders;
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceeding (DA Form 1999):Memorandum for 1998 United States Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant/ Sergeant Major Promotion Board; two letters of congratulation for promotion to SGM/E-9;
4. The applicant’s military records show that 2 June 2000, the applicant was honorably retired from the Army with a disability rating of 30 percent, after completing 20 years, 4 months, and 29 days of active military service.
5. The Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge
(DD Form 214), issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of her separation, confirms that at the time of his separation she held the rank of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8).
6. The DD Form 214 also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards and decorations: Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Award); Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award); Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award); Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (2nd Award); Humanitarian Service Medal (2nd Award); Good Conduct Medal (5th Award); National Defense Service Medal; Armed Forces Reserve Medal (2nd Award).
7. The applicant was recommended and selected for the promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by the 1998 United States Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant/ Sergeant Major Promotion Board.
8. On 17 September 1999, the applicant was evaluated by a PEB that convened at Fort Lewis, Washington. This PEB determined that she was physically unfit for duty and assigned her a combined disability rating of 30 percent.
9. Orders Number C-02-700250, dated 11 February 2000, issued by US Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s REFRAD due to disability retirement on 2 June 2000. Accordingly, on 2 June 2000, she was separated, under the provisions of Title 10 of the United Sates Code, section 1201, by reason of physical disability, and placement on the Retired List on 3 June 2000 in retired grade of MSG/E-8.
10. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Director, Full Time Support Management Directorate, ARPERSCOM. It opined that the applicant was selected for promotion to pay grade E-9 but entered into medical channels before she was promoted. In addition, orders were never published promoting her to pay grade E-9 and she was ineligible to reenlist due to failure to meet medical retention standards. Finally, ARPERSCOM concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for promotion under special circumstances and recommended that the applicant’s request to be placed on the Retired List in pay grade E-9 be denied.
11. On 11 April 2002, the applicant was forwarded a copy of the ARPERSCOM advisory opinion for comment/rebuttal and fail to respond.
12. Army Regulation 635-5 establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB). 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.
13. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1372(3) governs the grade upon retirement of members of the armed forces who retire for physical disability. This law provides, pertinently, that a member who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 or 1204 is entitled to the permanent regular or reserve grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he retired and was found to exist as a result of a physical examination.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that her military records be corrected to show that she was placed on the Retired List in pay grade E-9 finds this claim has merit. The evidence of record confirms that she was on a valid promotion standing list prior to her disability processing. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion by ARPERSCOM, the Board finds sufficient reason to conclude that he should have been placed on these lists in the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9.
2. The evidence or record shows that the applicant was on a promotion standing list to the rank of SGM/E-9 by a properly constituted Department of the Army promotion selection board sometime prior to his disability processing.
3. By law, members retiring for physical disability should be retired in the rank to which they would have been promoted had it not been for the disability. The intent of the law is clearly to ensure that members whom the Army has identified as being fully qualified for promotion through the promotion board selection process are not denied those advancements because their careers are cut short by physical disability.
5. Given her promotion list status, the Board presumes the applicant would have been promoted to SGM at some point prior to her normal retirement had her service not been cut short because of his physical disability. Thus, in the interest of justice and equity, the Board finds her record should be corrected to show she was placed on the Retired List as a SGM/E-9, and that she be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result.
6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the rank and pay grade of the individual concerned was SGM/E-9 on 3 June 2000, the date he was placed on the Retired List by reason of permanent disability.
BOARD VOTE:
_RVO___ ___JPI__ __PM____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr._
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001062149 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015388
The applicant states: * she was processed under the integrated disability system (IDES) and she was permanently retired in the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered her case and denied her request to be retired in the rank/grade of MSG/E-8 * she was promoted to MSG/E-8 in 2001 and served satisfactorily in that rank/grade; she was also laterally appointed to first sergeant (1SG) * she was the first female 1SG assigned to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012645
The applicant provides: * medical document * DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) * DA Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) * DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record Enlisted) * permanent physical profiling memorandum * reassignment orders and revocation of reassignment orders * personal statement * Medical Report and Functional Capacity * Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Process * Summary of Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)/Medical Retention Board (MMRB)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021378
The applicant's military records show he served in the Regular Army from 10 September 1975 to 9 September 1978 and in the U.S. Army Reserve from 10 September 1978 to 25 June 1979. He provided a copy of his letter to the AGDRB, dated 19 November 2009, wherein he stated although he had worn the E-9 rank and served as a SGM for over 3 years, he had not completed 2 years of service after completing the Sergeants Major Academy, so he was retired as an E-8. As a result, the Board recommends that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024573
Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), paragraph 1-20c, states that, per the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1372, Soldiers on a promotion list at the time of retirement for disability will be retired for disability at the promotion list grade. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was on a promotion recommended list as of 2007 at the time her disability was discovered and should have been retained on that list while undergoing medical processing....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012856
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The first such promotion board was the CY2003 IRR/IMA/EAD board. In conclusion, the G1 advisory opinion stated the applicant's 1999 promotion was erroneous and was properly revoked.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000165
Section III (Service Data) of the applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) dated 18 January 2011 shows she was reduced to the following ranks and grades on the dates indicated: * SPC - 18 August 2009 * PFC - 29 July 2010 7. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to PFC/E-3 on 2 July 2003 and satisfactorily held this grade until she was REFRAD, transferred to the USAR, and promoted to SPC/E-4 on 1 May 2004. As a result, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request...
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 | 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 | 2001060100C070421
On 20 December 1989, a panel of this Board denied the applicant’s request to have his records corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-9, effective 1 March 1983. In effect, this decision was based on the fact that the Board disagreed with the ARPERSCOM position that there was no evidence to show the applicant was reduced to SFC/E-7 at the time he voluntarily entered active duty in that rank and pay grade. Further, there is no evidence contained in the record that shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024351
Headquarters, USARC Orders 09-072-00007, dated 13 March 2009, promoted her to sergeant major in MOS 42A with an effective date of 15 January 2009. In her request she stated a MSG at USARC stated she wasn't the only SGM whose promotion orders were revoked. USARC stated the applicant's promotion board was from 16 - 20 January 2007.