| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he met the time in grade and time in service requirements to be promoted to the pay grade E-6. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), and two Memoranda, dated 22 September and 23 September 1971, issued by Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart, Georgia.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 December 1973, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing a total of 20 years and 2 days of active military service.
The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that he held the rank of specialist five/E-5 (SP5/E-5) and that he was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C
(Motor Transport Operator) at the time of his REFRAD. It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards: Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; Good Conduct Medal
(6th Award); and National Defense Service Medal (1st OLC).
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) show that the highest grade he attained while serving on active duty was SP5/E-5. In addition, there are no documents contained in the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that suggest that he was ever selected for promotion to SSG/E-6.
The Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart, Memoranda provided by the applicant confirm that he appeared before a local E-6 promotion selection board, was added to the standing list for promotion, and outlines criteria established by the command for promotion. However, there is no indication that the applicant was ever actually promoted to SSG/E-6 prior to separating from active duty. In addition, the applicant admits that he was never assigned to a position that allowed from him to be promoted by the command.
Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the separation documents. It states, in effect, that the active duty grade of rank at the time of separation will be entered on the separation document.
Army Regulation 15-185, provides the regulation that governs the operation of the Board, sets forth the procedures for processing requests to correct military records states, in pertinent part, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity and the burden of proving error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence rests with the applicant.
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 contention of the applicant that he met the requirements of time in service and time in grade to be promoted to the pay grade E-6, and in effect, should have been promoted. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant did meet the time in grade and time in service requirements for consideration for promotion to SSG/E-6 and that he in fact was added to a promotion standing list in 1971. However, there is no evidence showing that he ever met all the criteria for promotion to SSG/E-6 or that he was ever promoted to SSG/E-6 by the proper promotion authority.
3. By the applicant’s own admission, he did not meet the criteria for promotion by the local command and was never actually promoted to SSG/E-6 while he was serving on active duty. Lacking evidence to show any error or injustice related to the applicant not being promoted to SSG/E-6, the Board is compelled to conclude 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
__RJW__ ___LE___ __MVT__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073351 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/08 |
| 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. | 131.0900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000080
A Recommended List for Promotion of Enlisted Personnel to Grade E-6, issued by Headquarters, 94th Engineer Battalion (Combat) on 28 July 1978, shows the applicant was recommended for promotion to SSG in MOS 51R. His record does not contain orders showing he was promoted to SSG/E-6 while serving on active duty in the Regular Army. Although he appeared before the battalion's promotion board and was recommended for promotion, his record contains no evidence and he has provided no evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103935C070208
Robert Rogers | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) for the period 2003021-20040209 be corrected to show his grade as Staff Sergeant (SSG/pay grade E-6) and that he received a third award of the Army Commendation Medal. c. Orders 03-079-00005, Headquarters, 143rd TRANSCOM, Orlando, Florida, dated 20 March 2003,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017923
There are no orders or other evidence authorizing award of this decoration to the applicant. The board would consist of both officers and enlisted appointed by the appropriate promotion authority to select individuals for promotion to pay grades E-5 through E-9. A list of the individuals recommended by the board and selected by the promotion authority, in the order they were to be promoted, would be published.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011324
There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant was promoted to the rank of SSG prior to 5 September 1972 and the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show differently. His DD Form 214 shows he separated as an SP5; however, the MOS shown on his DD Form 214 is 13B4O. His DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his rank as SGT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015101
The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 21 February 2000, which shows that the applicant requested "to be considered for advancement to next higher grade." Her records also contain a copy of Headquarters, Board for Correction of Military Records, Arlington, Virginia, memorandum, dated 28 June 2000, which shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062148C070421
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 24 (Service Record), that documents his period of service from 11 November 1950 to 30 November 1962, confirms in section 1 (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SP5/E-5 on 1 June 1958 and that this was the highest pay grade in which he served while on active duty. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SP5/E-5 on the date of his separation and that on the following day...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019998
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 in May 1973 and consideration for any subsequent promotions he may have been eligible for based on the corrected date of promotion to SSG/E-6. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in May 1973. Although the applicant states his detachment commander informed him he had no way to convene a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023091
The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 * DA Form 2495 (Disposition Form), dated 10 August 1971, subject: 1st Aircraft Maintenance Battalion Promotion Standing List, with Recommended List for Promotion of Enlisted Personnel to Pay Grade E-5 * Special Orders Number 277, U.S. Army Flight Training Center and Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, GA, dated 13 October 1971 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. He appeared before the 1st Aircraft Maintenance Battalion Promotion Board on 5 August 1971 and was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020007
The applicant provides his DD Form 214 and an Army Commendation Medal awards certificate. Regarding his request to have his rank/grade shown as SSG/E-6, his record shows: * he received NJP on 1 February 1983 with a punishment of reduction in rank from SSG/E-6 to SP5/E5; the reduction was suspended until 1 May 1983 * on 10 March 1983, the suspension was vacated; this action reduced him in rank/grade to SP5/E-5 effective the date of the original NJP (1 February 1983) * his record contains no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002892C070206
The applicant requests that his 1971 separation document be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in the rank of sergeant (SGT) vice specialist 5 (SP5). The applicant notes that several documents, including his request for early separation, award orders, training certificate, and separation orders from the United States Army Reserve in 1974 and 1975 show his rank as SGT. The orders promoting the applicant to SP5 do not show he was serving as an acting sergeant in pay grade E-4 and...