| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request to be promoted to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6), effective July 1986; that be placed on the Retired list in the rank of SSG/E-6, effective
17 April 1999; and that he be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the original consideration of his case by the Board, that was summarized in Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) case number AR2001056777, dated 11 September 2001, did not include consideration of four recommendations for promotion memorandums and eight letters of support he now provides.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in MOC AR2001056777, dated
11 September 2001, which was prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of this case. The applicant provides four recommendations for promotion memorandums. This is considered a submission of new evidence that requires reconsideration by the Board.
The promotion recommendation memorandums provided by the applicant confirm that he served in a position authorized as a SSG/E-6 and based on his performance in this position, he was recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6. In addition, the memorandums commented on the applicant’s accomplishments, contributions to his unit, and his excellent duty performance while serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 96B (Food Service Specialist), and indicated that his not being promoted was due to failures on the part of the system.
In its original decision on this case, the Board noted that based on the available records there was no indication that the applicant served in positions authorized the pay grades of E-6 or E-7. Also, that there was no evidence that the applicant was ever selected for or promoted to the pay grades of E-6 or E-7. Thus, lacking evidence to show the applicant held a rank and pay grade above sergeant/E-5, the Board denied the requested relief.
Army Regulation 135-180 implements the statutory authorities governing the granting of retired pay to soldiers and former Reserve Component (RC) soldiers. Chapter 2 states, in pertinent part, that the Retired Activities Directorate, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) will screen each retirement applicant’s records to determine the highest grade held by him or her during his/her military service.
Paragraph 2-11c of the regulation further provides that the retired grade of an enlisted member transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged on or after
25 February 1975, will be the highest grade held while on active duty or in an Reserve enlisted status for at least 185 days or 6 calendar months.
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 promoted and advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, and it carefully considered the recommendation memorandums he submitted as new evidence. However, it still finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. Notwithstanding the documentation provided by the applicant in support of his case, which indicates that his not being promoted was due to a failure on the part of unit personnel and the system, the evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant was promoted to, held, and in which he satisfactorily served during his military service was SGT/E-5. His record further verifies that his transfer to the Retired Reserve and processing for retired pay was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the retirement process.
3. By law and regulation, a RC soldier is retired in the highest grade held at anytime while on active duty or in a Reserve enlisted status. A thorough review of the applicant’s record revealed no orders promoting him to a pay grade higher than E-5 at anytime during military service and he has failed to provide independent evidence to the contrary. While the Board notes that the applicant served and performed admirably in a position authorized as a SSG/E-6, service in a position alone does not satisfy the highest grade held or satisfactory service regulatory provisions for assignment of a higher retired grade in this case.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
___JLP__ __HOF__ __GJW__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070780 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/23 |
| 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. | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000296
Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), volume 7B (Military Pay Policy and Procedures-Retired Pay), chapter 1 (Initial Entitlements-Retirements), section 0105 (Rank and Pay Grade), paragraph 010501A (General Determinations) states that unless entitled to a higher grade under some other provision of law, those Regular and Reserve members who retire other than for disability, will retire in the Regular or Reserve grade they hold on the date of retirement. By law, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074206C070403
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 was discriminated against in receiving a promotion while serving in the military. 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 | CY2014 | 20140021210
The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he was placed on the retired list in the rank/pay grade of SSG/E-6, the highest grade he satisfactorily held, instead of SGT/E-5, because he was not reduced for adverse reasons. The available evidence in this case confirms the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6, on 7 January 1998, and he satisfactorily served in that rank until he was administratively reduced to SGT/E-5 on 21 December 2004. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004140
Unit manning report, dated 1 August 1986, showing he was assigned to a SSG/E-6 position within the Food Service Section of the 550th MI Battalion, Pedricktown. A memorandum from the U.S. Army Reserve Command Deputy IG who opines that after reviewing the applicant's various documents and the previous ABCMR decisions, he found new and compelling evidence provided by the applicant's former company and battalion-level chain of command concluding the applicant would have been promoted to SSG/E-6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070550C070402
The applicant requests, as the spouse of the deceased former service member (FSM), that her husband’s military records be corrected to show his retired grade as Staff Sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, instead of Sergeant (SGT), pay grade E-5. The evidence of record shows that the FSM served satisfactorily in the pay grade of SGT/E-5 from 1 November 1975 to 30 September 1982, in the pay grade of SSG/E-6 from 1 October 1982 to 11 September 1984, and again in the pay grade of SGT/E-5 from 19...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062784C070421
It states, in pertinent part, that in order for a Reserve officer below the rank of lieutenant colonel to be credited with satisfactory service in a higher grade, they must have served satisfactorily in that grade as a Reserve commissioned officer in an active status, or in a retired status on active duty, for not less than six months. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011626
The applicant states his retirement orders show his grade as SSG/E-6. Army Regulation 135-180 (ARNG and Army Reserve Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service) states that a person granted retired pay will receive such pay in the highest grade (temporary or permanent) satisfactorily held by him or her during his or her entire period of service. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * amending...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020860
The applicant provides copies of the following documents: * a memorandum, dated 15 July 2009, from the Deputy Inspector General (IG) * his previously-submitted applications with allied documents and statements of support * previous Army Board for Correction of Military Record (ABCMR) Records of Proceedings and/or administrative letters CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. There is no indication in the applicant's available records that shows what the outcome of that recommendation was or: a. if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001023C070205
The applicant's record shows that he served on active duty in an enlisted status in the United States Marine Corps for 9 years, 8 months, and 13 days from 27 June 1969 through 9 March 1979, at which time he was honorably separated in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024096
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 June 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110024096 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The record shows the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 1 December 1992, and this is the highest rank he attained and held during his military service. The record is void of any indication that the applicant was ever selected for promotion to a rank above SSG/E-6 by a promotion selection board under the centralized promotion system.