| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served in a position authorized a higher pay grade while assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas, Fort Lewis, Washington, and Germany. In support of his application, he submits the following documents: Personnel Qualification Records (DA Form 2 & 2-1); and a copy of an article from the Army Echoes newsletter titled “Who Can Be Advanced On the Retired List.”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 March 1981, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing 20 years, 7 months, and 21 days of active military service.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms in block 18 (appointments and reductions) shows that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on 1 October 1971, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he attained while serving on active duty. In addition, there are no documents contained in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that suggest he ever held or served in a higher pay grade while on active duty.
The Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214), issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that at the time of his separation he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 and that he was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist).
The DD Form 214 also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards and decorations: National Defense Service Medal; Two Overseas Bars; Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars; Bronze Star Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; Driver Badge; Good Conduct Medal (6th Award); Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation; and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (M-16 Rifle).
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 contention that he should be advanced on the Retired List to the rank of SFC/E-7 based on his service in a position authorized a higher pay grade. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
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. Service in a position authorized a higher pay grade and performing those duties associated with the higher rank does not alone serve as a basis for promotion or advancement on the Retired List.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 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 the applicant does not meet the satisfactory service provisions of the advancement law. Therefore, it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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
__JLF___ ___BJL__ __TL____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068213 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/21 |
| 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. | 129.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076381C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The term “highest grade in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075776C070403
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. By law, soldiers retire in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD for retirement, and in order to be advanced on the Retired List, a soldier must have satisfactorily served on active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076732C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 1 December 1969, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 30 November 1970, in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6. The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained while serving on active duty was SSG/E-6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056907C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that during his military career he served in positions calling for a higher rank but he was never actually promoted. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, which is the highest rank to which he was actually promoted, paid as, and served in while on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007609
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 September 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007609 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was placed on the Retired List as a sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. The orders show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SSG.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006072
(2) Army Regulation 15-80, paragraph 2-5 states "one specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time service in grade." He provided the following documents which indicate he was serving in the rank of SFC/E-7: a. award certificate, dated 30 September 1987, awarding him the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious service from 11 August 1987 to 24 August 1987; b. award...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073643C070403
On 10 February 1982, after serving as a SSG/E-6 for almost 5 years, he was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7), which is the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty. On 23 May 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) convened to consider the applicant’s advancement on the Retired List, and it denied advancement on the Retired List based on the applicant’s general court-martial conviction and the resultant sentence which included his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065230C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement on the Retired List to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005948
There is no available evidence showing the applicant's change in rank from SFC to SSG. He continuously served in the AGR program until 31 October 1998, when he retired by reason of sufficient service for retirement. Additionally, there is no evidence that physical health problems were the only reason that the applicant did not complete ANCOC and no evidence that failure to complete ANCOC was the reason that his promotion to SFC was effectively voided.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017795
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. His DA Form 2-1 indicates in block 5 (Assignment Consideration): * he was not recommended for further service on 13 June 1986 * he had been removed from the SFC/E-7 Selection list * his bar to reenlistment was reviewed and it was not...