| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank and pay grade in which he satisfactorily served on active duty.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served in numerous positions above his retired rank and pay grade while on active duty. He claims that having met the requirements of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964, he now requests advancement on the Retired List.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 October 1991, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7), and had completed a total of 21 years, 6 months, and
28 days of active military service.
On 26 March 1991, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 31 October 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7.
A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 17 April 1991, prepared during his retirement processing, contains the entry SFC/E-7 in Item 2 (Active Duty Grade), Item 3 (Retired Grade), and Item 8 (Highest Grade Held). Item 10 (Retired Pay) also confirmed that he would receive retired pay as a SFC/E-7.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms in
Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to SFC/E-7 on
1 August 1983, with a date of rank of 25 July 1983, and that this was the highest rank and pay grade he was promoted to and held while serving on active duty.
On 27 March 1991, Orders Number 60-27, published by Headquarters, United States Army Intelligence Center, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, directed the applicant’s REFRAD on 31 October 1991, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 November 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 31 October 1991, which he authenticated with his signature in
Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated), confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the date of REFRAD.
On 21 June 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List. The AGDRB determined that the applicant was never promoted to any rank and pay grade above SFC/E-7 while serving on active duty. Therefore, he was placed on the Retired List in the highest rank and pay grade that he satisfactorily held while on active duty.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and it states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement as prescribed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961, which provides the legal authority for retirement grades.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964, provides the legal authority for advancement on the Retired List and 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 in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty as determined by the Secretary of the service concerned. A satisfactory service determination under this provision of the law requires that a member be promoted to and served in a higher rank and pay grade while serving on active duty, performing duties in a position authorized a higher rank and pay grade alone does not satisfy this requirement.
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 advanced to a higher rank and pay grade on the Retired List. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade that the applicant was promoted to, held, in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty was SFC/E-7. As a result, he was appropriately placed on the Retired List in this rank and pay grade in accordance with the applicable law and regulation.
3. 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.
4. 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
_ _JHL_ _ __TBF__ __RWA__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074792 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/10/31 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002083189C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty. On 16 March 1992, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 31 January 1993, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. 3 The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade the applicant attained while serving on active duty was SFC/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091703C070212
On 8 January 1990, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting a retirement date of 31 October 1990, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served on active duty when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years. By law, enlisted soldiers are retired in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082165C070215
On 30 January 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered the applicant’s case and determined that the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served for the purpose of computation of retired pay was SFC/E-7, and that the date he became eligible for advancement on the Retired List would be determined by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM). By law, members retire in the active duty grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD for retirement. The law does...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074764C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank and pay grade in which he satisfactorily served on active duty. The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank and pay grade that the applicant was promoted to, held, in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty was SFC/E-7.
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 | CY2002 | 2002077590C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: It denied the applicant’s advancement to 1SG/E-8 on the Retired List because he had never served in that rank and pay grade while on active duty, which is required under the provisions of the advancement law. 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 | CY2002 | 2002080375C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. On 3 October 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011957
The applicant's military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in pay grade E-1 on 27 May 1977. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3964, states each retired member of the Army covered by subsection (b) who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which he or she served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Army when his or her active service plus his or her service on the...
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.