| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be paid back E-4 pay and allowances.
APPLICANT STATES: That his E-4 rank was unjustly taken during basic training and when he was being discharged from the Army. Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 1997 in the grade of E-4.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record part II, DA Form 2-1, shows his enlistment rank and grade of Specialist, E-4 with a date of rank of 17 November 1997. The next entry shows his rank and grade as Private, E-1 with a date of rank of 13 January 1998. His Personnel Qualification Record part I, DA Form 2A, dated 25 November 1998 shows his rank and grade as Private First Class, E-3 with a date of rank of 11 February 1998 with a written correction changing his rank to Private, E-2 (with no change to his date of rank but with 11 February 1998 lined through). There are no Personnel Action forms, DA Form 4187, on file recording his reductions and/or later advancements.
On 7 December 1998, charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with several charges and/or specifications. The charge sheet refers to him as Private, E-2.
On 14 December 1998, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He referred to himself and signed the request as Private, E-2. On 21 December 1998, he requested withdrawal of his request for discharge. He referred to himself as Private, E-2. His chain of command variously recommended approval or disapproval of his request for discharge but all referred to him as Private, E-2. The appropriate authority approved the request on 12 January 1999, referred to the applicant as Private, E-2, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 27 January 1999, the applicant was discharged with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, items 4a, 4b, and 12h showed his rank, grade, and date of rank to be Private, E-1 13 January 1998. On 12 April 2000, his DD Form 214, item 12h was corrected to show his date of rank as 13 January 1999.
On 3 January 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. It noted that the highest grade he achieved was Specialist, E-4. The ADRB recommended upgrading his discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions and noted that the action entailed a restoration of grade to E-4. As a result of the ADRB’s action, his DD Form 214 was re-issued with items 4a, 4b, and 12h reflecting his rank, grade, and date of rank as Specialist, E-4 17 November 1997.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, it states that when the separation authority determines that a soldier is to be discharged from the Service under other than honorable conditions, the soldier will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
Records at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) show the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-3 on 4 December 1997, reduced to pay grade E-2 on11 February 1998, and reduced to pay grade E-1 on 1 March 1998.
DFAS’s records also indicate that he had applied to them after the ADRB’s action for any due back pay and allowances. DFAS paid him for 21.5 days of accrued leave but did not pay him any difference in pay and allowances between E-1 and E-4 since their records indicated he had been reduced to E-1 prior to his discharge.
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. 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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that DFAS properly paid him all that was required after the ADRB upgraded his discharge.
2. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show his rank of Specialist, E-4 was unjustly “taken” during basic training. (Judging from the reduction rank DFAS’s records show, this may have been an administrative reduction.) The evidence in his personnel records show that he was reduced in February 1998 to Private First Class, E-3 and on an unknown date to Private, E-2. He believed himself to be a Private, E-2 at the time he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial.
3. Records at DFAS indicate the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-3 on 4 December 1997, reduced to pay grade E-2 on 11 February 1998, and reduced to pay grade E-1 on 1 March 1998 with no record of his being advanced to E-2 after that date.
4. It appears that the ADRB correctly noted that the highest grade achieved by the applicant was Specialist, E-4 but it appears that board erred when it noted that its action to upgrade his discharge entailed a restoration to grade E-4. The ADRB’s action would have restored his grade (if higher than Private, E-1) to the grade he held on the day prior to the date of the approval of his request for discharge. There was no evidence of record to support the reflecting of his rank and grade as Specialist, E-4 on his re-issued DD Form 214.
5. The applicant’s personnel files are incomplete as they contain no DA Forms 4187 reflecting his reductions (or administrative reductions) and/or advancements. Unless the applicant has evidence, such as DA Forms 4187 or leave and earnings statements, showing he was advanced in grade after his recorded reduction to Private, E-1 on 1 March 1998, DFAS’s records are considered the verifiable source of his promotion/reduction history.
6. 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
__FNE__ __MHM__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072725 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001195
The evidence of record shows he was reduced to PVT/E-1 on 2 February 1998 as a result of NJP. At the time the DA Form 4187 was prepared the applicant's rank was PVT/E-1. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting item 14 of his DD Form 214 to show he successfully completed AIT and he was awarded MOS 92A or that he was discharged in the rank of PFC/E-3.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009268
With the exception of the applicant's DD Form 214, all documents maintained in his military personnel records jacket (MPRJ) issued subsequent to the date of his promotion to the rank of SP4 lists his rank as SP4. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to the rank and grade of SP4/E-4 on 1 January 1997 and this was the rank he held on his date of separation from active duty as evidenced by the DA Form 4187 and his separation orders. Therefore, items 4a, 4b, and 12h of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009700
The applicant requests Item 4a (Grade) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 5 September 1997 be changed to read SPC (specialist) instead of PFC (private first class). The applicant's military records show she enlisted on 2 October 1995 for a period of 4 years. The evidence shows that at the time of the applicants separation she had been promoted to specialist/pay grade E-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012154
However, based on the above evidence that shows the applicant was advanced to the pay grade of E-4, PERSCOM Orders D168-3, dated 25 August 1992, should be amended to show his retired grade and rank as SPC/E-4, with entitlement to back pay and allowances. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting the entry in item 12h of his DD Form 214; b. amending his DD Form 214 in item 12h to add 29 July 1992; c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019880
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019880 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He states his DD Form 214 is in error because item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) shows the correct date he was promoted to SPC/E-4. Accordingly, he was retired on 10 April 2009 in the grade of PVT/E-1 (item 12h incorrectly shows the effective date of pay grade as 1 July 2008).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091012C070212
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. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was advanced to the rank and pay grade of private/E-2, effective 1 March 1998, by the appropriate authority prior to her separation. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief and to excuse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010175
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his records to show the effective date of pay grade to specialist (SPC)/E4 as 8 January 2001, the date the Special Court-Martial convening authority approved his sentence for reduction to the grade of SPC/E4, instead of 9 June 2000, as shown in Item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). However, soon after his discharge, he received his DD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016348
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090016348 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank), item 4b (Pay Grade), and item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 13 March 1992 be corrected. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 March 1992, a Certificate of Promotion,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060679C070421
Item I1, Section I, Enlisted Records Brief, prepared on 12 April 2001 shows applicant’s rank and Date of Rank (DOR) as: SPC 19960615. His DD Form 214 correctly shows his rank as PFC; however, the date of rank shown in item 12h is not correct. The date of rank shown on the DD Form 214 is that for the former rank of Specialist Four held by the applicant before he received nonjudicial punishment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017064
The DA Form 4187-E, dated 13 December 1993, and DFAS Leave and Earnings Statement show the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 prior to his separation from active duty. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to paying the applicant for 25.5 days accrued leave if the audit of his records shows he has already been paid...