| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his pay grade of E-4 on retirement be corrected to the pay grade of E-5.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he had been approved for promotion to E-5 prior to his retirement by reason of physical disability and he should have been promoted.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was serving on active duty in the pay grade of E-4 when, on 1 September 1985, he was recommended and approved for promotion to the pay grade of E-5.
5. On 26 December 1985, a Medical Evaluation Board found the applicant to have medical defects that warranted referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). His PEB met on 21 January 1986 and determined that he was physically unfit for further military service with a combined rating of 30 percent. It was determined that he should be permanently retired from the service. The PEB findings and recommendations were approved on 31 March 1986.
6. On 5 May 1986, orders were issued which retired the applicant effective 2 June 1986 and placed him on the Retired List effective 3 June 1986 by reason of physical disability rated at 30 percent. His retired grade is shown as E-4.
7. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) shows that he was separated in the pay grade of E-4 effective 2 June 1986 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-40 by reason of permanent physical disability.
8. Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 1372(3) governs the grade upon retirement of members of the Armed Forces who retire for physical disability. This law provides that a member who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 or 1204 is entitled to the permanent Regular or Reserve grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he retired and was found to exist as a result of a physical examination.
9. Army Regulation 15-80 establishes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB). It states, in pertinent part, that the AGDRB will review cases and determine the highest grade in which a soldier has served satisfactorily for purposes of computation of retired pay for separation by reason of physical disability. There is no evidence of record that the AGDRB ever reviewed the applicant's case for a grade determination.
10. Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time, provided that the grade on retirement would be governed by Title 10, USC, sections 1372 and 1373. It also stated that Headquarters, Department of the Army would make the final grade decision.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was recommended for and approved for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 prior to the determination of the PEB that he was physically unfit for further military service.
2. Based on the evidence of record it appears that the applicant was denied the appropriate review by the AGDRB, which most likely would have resulted in a determination that he was entitled to retirement in the pay grade of E-5.
3. Because of the error in the applicant's separation process, the Board believes that he is also entitled to any back pay and allowances had he been placed on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-5 on 3 June 1986.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case for the individual concerned be corrected by:
a. showing that he was placed on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-5 on 3 June 1986; and
b. paying any back pay and allowances that might be due had he been placed on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-5 on 3 June 1986.
BOARD VOTE:
__ao___ ___kl___ ___dh____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Arthur A. Omartian____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002071331 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020924 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT PLUS |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015758
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015758 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 July 2011, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened in Washington, D.C. determined that he was unfit for duty and recommended that he be retired by reason of permanent disability with a 100% disability rating. The evidence of record confirms the applicant held and satisfactorily served in the rank and pay grade of PSG/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306598
He states that he was promoted to pay grade E-6 in 1975, and promoted to pay grade E-7 in February 1981. Army Regulation 15-80 establishes policies, procedure, and responsibilities of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), and states in pertinent part that the AGDRB will make final determinations on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was placed on the TDRL...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024097
It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability that resulted in retirement. In accordance with statutory and regulatory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020251
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was retired by reason of permanent disability in the rank and pay grade of sergeant (SGT) E-5. The applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-4 at the time he was retired in the pay grade of E-4; however, by virtue of the fact that he was on the promotion standing list for the pay grade of E-5, he should have been advanced on the Retired List under operation of law to the rank of SGT/E-5 instead of being retired in the grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078455C070215
It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; or the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability. By law, members retiring for physical disability are entitled to a grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014900
Prior to his injury, he was told to prepare to go before the board because he was being placed on the promotion list for pay grade E-5 based on his time, grade, and leadership ability while in Iraq as an E-4 promotable. The evidence of record shows the applicant was medically retired on 4 September 2007 and he was placed on the retired list in the rank of SPC/E-4. It does not appear that a grade determination was requested or required at the time of the applicant's medical retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016964
The applicant was serving on active duty as a recruiter in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) in the AGR program in the pay grade of E-7 when he was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 6 February 1991. There is no evidence to show that the Physical Disability Evaluation Board requested a grade determination in his case. The applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-7 at the time he was retired in the pay grade of E-7; however, by virtue of the fact that he was promoted to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062149C070421
The applicant was recommended and selected for the promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by the 1998 United States Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant/ Sergeant Major Promotion Board. The evidence or record shows that the applicant was on a promotion standing list to the rank of SGM/E-9 by a properly constituted Department of the Army promotion selection board sometime prior to his disability processing. By law, members retiring for physical disability should be retired in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076495C070215
This law applies both at the time a member is placed on the TDRL or the Retired List based on a permanent disability. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was advanced to the rank and pay grade of SPC/E-4 on 1 October 1985, and that he held that rank and pay grade on the date of his REFRAD on 30 April 1986. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was placed on the TDRL in the rank and pay grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100785C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 August 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004100785 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. He states he was a SGT/E-5 for four years and was medically discharged from the Army in 1991 and placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4). The evidence of record confirms the...