| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the pay grade of E-9 on the Retired List.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served satisfactorily in E-9 positions for many years. He claims that an Army Echo article proclaiming who could be advanced on the Retired List turned false and was annoying to him. He further states claims that there are errors and omissions in his military records that should result in an amendment to Special Order Number 165, dated
19 November 1958, issued by Headquarters, VII Corps, APO 107, which appointed him to the temporary grade of sergeant first class in connection with his immediate reenlistment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 September 1963, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On that date he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-6 (SFC/E-6) and had completed a total of 20 years, 11 months, and
5 days of active military service.
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 24 (Service Record), that documents his period of service from 14 February 1951 to 30 September 1963, confirms in section 1 (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6 on 11 October 1951 and that this was the highest pay grade to which he was promoted and held while serving on active duty.
On 3 May 1963, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting to be retired, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6. This application confirmed in block 12 (highest grade ever held on active duty) that the highest grade the applicant attained while serving on active duty was SFC/E-6. On 6 September 1963, his retirement on 1 October 1963 was approved and announced in Department of the Army (DA) Special Order Number 219.
A Data for Retired Pay (AGPZ Form 977), dated 6 September 1963, that was prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing, verified that his active duty grade and the highest grade he attained while on active duty was SFC/E-6. It also confirmed that he would be placed on the Retired List , effective
1 October 1963, and that his retired pay grade would also be SFC/E-6.
The record also contains a properly constituted separation document
(DD Form 214), which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his REFRAD. This document shows that on 30 September 1963, he was separated under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3914, by reason of length of service retirement. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/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.
The applicant provides a copy of Special Order 165, dated 19 November 1958, issued by Headquarters, VII Corps, APO 107. This order indicates that having been discharged from military service on 18 November 1958 and reenlisted in the permanent grade of sergeant/E-5 with a date of rank of 15 April 1950 on 19 November 1958 for a 4 year term, the applicant was appointed to the grade of SFC (temporary) with a date of rank of 11 October 1951. However, this appointment order does not contain an authorization to promote the applicant to a pay grade above E-6.
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 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 legal authority for this action is provided by Title 10 of the Untied States Code, section 3964
(10 USC 3964).
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 on the Retired List and that his appointment order to the temporary rank of SFC should be amended to show his pay grade as E-7. However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. By law and regulation, enlisted soldiers are retired in the rank they hold on the date of their REFRAD and retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army. In order to satisfy this requirement a member must have been promoted to, held, and served in the higher pay grade while on active duty, performing duties in a position authorized a higher pay grade does not satisfy this satisfactory service criteria of the advancement law.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6 on the date of his separation and that this was the highest pay grade he attained while serving on active duty. It also verifies that he was never actually promoted to, never held or served in a higher pay grade while he was on active duty and he has failed to provide independent evidence to the contrary.
4. In view of the facts of this case, the Board is compelled to conclude that the applicant was properly retired in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6 and that he does not meet the satisfactory service provision of the advancement law. Thus, he is not eligible for advancement to the pay grade higher than E-6 on the Retired List.
5. 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.
6. 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 __ _ _TSK __ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064713 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/01/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1963/09/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000 |
| 2. 319 | 131.0900 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005285
An AGUZ Form 658 (Determination of Grade for Retirement, Advancement, Separation or Retirement Pay), dated 14 May 1974, shows the FSM was promoted to MSGT (E-7) on 24 January 1953 and reduced to SFC (E-6) on 16 December 1957 (per orders). Records show the FSM held the grade of E-6 when he was retired from active duty on 31 May 1964 and he was placed on the Retired List in that grade. Records show the FSM was advanced on the Retired List to the grade of SFC (E-7), effective 16 May 1974,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062148C070421
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 24 (Service Record), that documents his period of service from 11 November 1950 to 30 November 1962, confirms in section 1 (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SP5/E-5 on 1 June 1958 and that this was the highest pay grade in which he served while on active duty. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SP5/E-5 on the date of his separation and that on the following day...
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 | 2002066460C070402
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. By law and regulation, enlisted soldiers are retired in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD, and retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091703C070212
On 8 January 1990, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting a retirement date of 31 October 1990, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. 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. By law, enlisted soldiers are retired in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077484C070215
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. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was REFRAD and placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 under the provisions of law pertaining to RA enlisted members who have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018714
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was advanced on the retired list to pay grade E-8. The applicant's military personnel record does not contain any evidence that shows he was promoted to MSG/E-8 or that he satisfactorily served on active duty in the grade of E-8. The DA Form 4980-12 shows he may have worked in a First Sergeant position (pay grade E-8); however, there is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he was promoted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066462C070402
As a result, the Board recommended, in effect, that all required actions be accomplished in order for the applicant’s record to be corrected to show he remained on active duty through 31 August 1990, at which time he was honorably released from active duty for the purpose of voluntary retirement, and that on 1 September 1990, he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. The Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 6 January 1993, prepared based on the Board’s 28...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082165C070215
On 30 January 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered the applicant’s case and determined that the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served for the purpose of computation of retired pay was SFC/E-7, and that the date he became eligible for advancement on the Retired List would be determined by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM). By law, members retire in the active duty grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD for retirement. The law does...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062145C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He also provides documents issued by Department of the Army (DA) that confirm his request for appointment as a warrant officer was denied on two separate occasions, first in 1969 and again in 1972. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was never actually promoted to or never held the rank and pay grade of WO1/W-1 while he was on active duty.