| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Gale J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) on the Retired List.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served honorably in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 for 4 years until being reduced to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He served on active duty a total of 20 years and 17 days until 31 May 1988, when he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, for the purpose of retirement.
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 1 August 1980, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty. It also verifies that on 23 August 1984, he was reduced to SSG/E-6 for misconduct.
The applicant’s disciplinary history while serving as a SFC/E-7 includes his acceptance nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 18 July 1983, for shoplifting; and 22 August 1984, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 to 17 August 1984.
In addition, on 25 June 1984, the applicant was found guilty of violating
Article 92 of the UCMJ by a special court-martial. His conviction was based on his violating a lawful general regulation by winking at and touching the hair of a female private first class (PFC). The resultant sentence was a reduction to SSG/E-6.
The record contains a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214), which was signed by the applicant on the date of his separation for the purpose of retirement. This document shows that on 31 May 1988, he was REFRAD under the provisions of chapter 12, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of length of service retirement. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/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.
On 11 February 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. They concluded that his service as an SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory due to his disciplinary history while serving in that rank and pay grade. Therefore, the AGDRB voted to deny his advancement to SFC/E-7 on the Retired List.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 12 sets the policy and procedure for the voluntary retirement of soldiers based on length of service. It states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement.
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. After carefully evaluating the applicant’s entire record of service, the Board finds it concurs with the AGDRB determination that his service as a SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory and he should not be advanced on the Retired List.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to SSG/E-6 due to his own misconduct as a result of his conviction by a special court-martial and that his disciplinary history while serving as an SFC/E-7 also included his acceptance of NJP on two separation occasions. Thus, the Board concludes that relief is not warranted in this case.
3. 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__ __RJW__ __GJW___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068467 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/03/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1988/05/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 319 | 139.0900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057713C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The 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 staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on the date of his separation. On 26 September 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060306C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 4 October 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be advanced to SFC/E-7 on the Retired List but after reviewing his overall record of service, the Board concludes it concurs with the AGDRB determination that his service as a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019999
He adds that he believes the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) should advance him on the retired list to 1SG/E-8 and that this Board should refer to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3963. On 31 January 2007, the applicant petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for advancement on the retired list. He subsequently accepted a voluntary reduction to SFC/E-7 on 27 December 1988 and was ordered to full-time National Guard duty, where he remained in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077017C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his REFRAD for retirement confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on that date. 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 | CY2011 | 20110010831
Having had prior active enlisted service from 2 August 1965 to 1 August 1968 and 13 January 1970 to 18 May 1974 (he was discharged as a specialist five (SP5)/E5), the applicant's records show he enlisted in the Massachusetts ARNG (MAARNG) on 8 March 1979 for 3 years in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5. Title 10, USC, section 3963 (Highest grade held satisfactorily: Reserve enlisted member reduced in grade not as a result of the member's misconduct) states a Reserve enlisted member of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019224
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he retired in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. The applicant contends his military records should be corrected to show he retired in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 because prior to receiving NJP he honorably held the rank of SFC for over 13 years. Therefore, his service in the rank of SFC was unsatisfactory, and his advancement to a rank above SGT on the Retired List would not be appropriate.
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 | 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 | CY2014 | 20140020058
The applicant requests, in effect: * advancement on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * a personal appearance before the Board 2. On 8 September 2000, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), in response to his request for advancement on the Retired List, determined the highest grade in which he had served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of retired pay was E-6. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to E-6...
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.