| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | ||
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he retired in the rank and pay grade of command sergeant major/E-9 (CSM/E-9).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that while he was assigned to the medical holding company, he was notified that he was selected for promotion by the Calendar Year 1995, Department of the Army, CSM Promotion Board. He further claims that he was promoted to CSM upon his retirement. In support of his application, he provides a copy of a corrected retirement order indicating he was a CSM/E-9.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 January 1996, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing 21 years, 7 months, and 3 days of active military service.
The Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active (DD Form 214), issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation, confirms that at the time of his separation he held the rank and pay grade of first sergeant/E-8 (1SG/E-8). It also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards and decorations: Legion of Merit; Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Award); Army Commendation Medal (4th Award); Army Achievement Medal (3rd Award); Army Good Conduct Medal (7th Award); National Defense Service Medal (2nd Award); Southwest Asia Service Medal; Kuwait Liberation Medal; and Ranger Tab.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) and Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) both show that the highest pay grade he attained and served in while on active duty was 1SG/E-8. The separation order on file in record confirms that his retired rank and pay grade was 1SG/E-8.
The applicant provides a copy of Orders Number 111-0026, dated 21 April 1995, issued by Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, which indicates his retired rank and pay grade was CSM/E-9. However, the separation order on file in the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) confirms that his retired rank and pay grade was 1SG/E-8. In addition, there are no other documents on file that suggests that the applicant was ever selected for, promoted to, or served as a CSM/E-9 while on active duty.
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 promoted to CSM upon his retirement. However, notwithstanding the separation order provided by the applicant, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. Lacking any evidence corroborating the rank and pay grade information contained in the separation order provided by the applicant, and given there is a properly constituted separation document on file that confirms the applicant’s rank and pay grade was 1SG/E-8 on the date of his separation, the Board is compelled to presume administrative regularity in the applicant’s retirement processing, which includes the assignment of his retired pay grade.
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
__INW __ _ _TL __ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | ARAR2001062428 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/12/18 |
| 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 | CY2010 | 20100020072
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was laterally appointed/promoted to command sergeant major (CSM)/pay grade E-9. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in: a. item 2 (Grade) - "SGM E9"; b. item 3 (Date of Rank) - "23 Nov 66" (i.e., 23 November 1966); c. item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties [MOS]) he was awarded primary MOS 13Z5O and secondary MOS 15E5O (Pershing Missile Crewman) on 23 November 1966; d. item 33 (Appointments and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006052
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was appointed to the rank of command sergeant major (CSM)/pay grade E-9 and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of CSM (E-9). The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in: a. item 2 (Grade) the entry "SGM E-9"; b. item 3 (Date of Rank) the entry "29 SEP 67"; c. item 31 (Foreign Service) that he served overseas in USAREUR in Germany from 10 September 1966 through 17 September 1969; d. item 33...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059124C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of command sergeant major/E-9 (CSM/E-9) on the Retired List. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, the available evidence in this case contains no indication that the applicant was ever recommended or selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by a DA promotion board or that he was placed on the E-9 promotion standing list prior to his being REFRAD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078622C070215
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record shows that the applicant was not selected for appointment to CSM while he was still on active duty, and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank title of SGM in accordance with the applicable law and regulations in effect at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077226C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Further, other than through a self-authored statement, the applicant also failed to provide any documentary evidence of reprisal or a record of his pre-trial confinement or reduction processing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061573C070421
The applicant requests, in effect, that his separation document (DD Form 214) be changed to show his correct date of rank (DOR) to the pay grade of E-9. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was initially promoted to the pay grade of E-9, effective 1 November 1993. Therefore, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to correct his separation document to reflect his correct effective date of promotion to the grade of E-9, which is 1 November 1993.
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 | CY2002 | 2002083189C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty. On 16 March 1992, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 31 January 1993, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. 3 The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained while serving on active duty was SFC/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065290C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 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. There are no provisions of law or regulation that provide for the advancement of an enlisted member who served in higher rank and pay grade in a Reserve Component, not on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077590C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: It denied the applicant’s advancement to 1SG/E-8 on the Retired List because he had never served in that rank and pay grade while on active duty, which is required under the provisions of the advancement law. 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: