| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8)
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served in a MSG/E-8 position for four years. He states that he was a diabetic for 14 years and continued to meet his duty requirements. Finally, he indicates that he deserves advancement on the Retired List and the Board should grant this request. In support of his application, he submits the following documents: two noncommissioned officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER-DA Form 2166-7); Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and Army Achievement Medal (AAM) Award Certificates; Bronze Star Medal orders; an undated letter, with the subject Special Consideration for Promotion to Master Sergeant that was signed by the applicant; and a
11 September 1980 letter with the subject Retention on Active Duty, signed by Chief, Disability Section Retirement Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 July 1992, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing 21 years, 6 months, and 25 days of active military service.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms in block 18 (appointments and reductions) that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) on 7 February 1986, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he attained while serving on active duty. In addition, there are no orders or other documents contained in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that give any indication that he was ever promoted to, held, or served in a higher pay grade while he was serving on active duty.
A Data For Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing contains the entry SFC/E-7 in Item 2 (Active Duty Grade), Item 3 (Retired Grade), Item 8 (Highest Grade Held), and Item 10 (Retired Pay), which verifies that this was the rank and pay grade he held on the date of his REFRAD and that it was the highest rank and pay grade he was promoted to and held while serving on active duty. This document further confirms that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on 1 August 1992.
The separation document (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 SFC/E-7 on the date of his separation and that he was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 74C (Automatic Data Telecommunications Center Operator).
The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-8. However, the AGRDB determined that the applicant was not eligible for advancement, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, because he was never promoted to, paid as, or served in a rank and pay grade above SFC/E-7 while on active duty and it denied his request.
Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, provides that a retired enlisted member or warrant officer of the 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 satisfactorily. The term “highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily” does not apply to a member who simply served in a position calling for a higher rank and pay grade. In order to meet the satisfactory service provisions of the law a member must have actually been promoted to, paid as, and served in the higher grade 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 contentions that he should be advanced on the Retired List to the pay grade of MSG/E-8 because he served in a position which authorized that rank and pay grade for 4 years and served honorably although a diabetic. However, the Board finds these factors alone do not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to warrant the relief requested.
2. By law, in order to be advanced on the Retired List it must be determined that a member satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher grade. In order to receive a satisfactory service determination under this statutory provision, a member must have been promoted to, paid as, and satisfactorily served in a higher pay grade while on active duty.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 and that this is the highest rank he attained and in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to show he satisfies the satisfactory service provisions of the advancement law. Therefore, the Board finds insufficient evidence to grant the requested relief.
4. 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.
5. 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
__RVO__ _ _JPI__ __RKS DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | A2001065230 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/03/07 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002075900C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 July 2002, the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced on the Retired List after determining that he was not in a promotable status on the effective date of his promotion. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s voluntary retirement request was approved in November 1981, ten months prior to the effective date...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072663C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078901C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Promotion Orders 205-7, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), dated 29 November 1989, authorized the applicant’s promotion to MSG/E-8 with an effective date of 1 January 1990. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s voluntary retirement request was approved in April 1989, eight months prior to the effective date of...
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 | CY2001 | 2001059788C070421
By law and regulation, retirement will be in the Regular or Reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement and advancement on the Retired List is only authorized when a member has held and satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher grade. In fact, the applicant’s own evidence, the LTG letter, confirms that the promotion recommendation submitted on him in 1968 was returned without action by the promotion authority. The Board also took special note of the fact that the...
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 | CY2003 | 2003084181C070212
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 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080375C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. On 3 October 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List.
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 | 2002080516C070215
The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-7. However, on 17 October 2002, the AGRDB determined that the applicant was not eligible for advancement, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, because he was never promoted to, paid as, or served in a rank and pay grade above SSG/E-6 while on active duty and it denied his request. By law, in order to be advanced...