| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John T.Meixell | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, promotion and advancement on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant major/E-9 (SGM/E-9).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his retirement was mandatory upon his completion of 27 years of service, and he believes he qualifies to be promoted and advanced to SGM/E-9 on the Retired List based on his service. In support of his application, he provides a copy of an Army Echoes Newsletter article on advancement on the Retired List and a copy of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), in which he was evaluated as a Food Service Supervisor.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 February 1984, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On that date he held the rank and pay grade of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8), and he had completed a total of 26 years, 11 months, and 8 days of active military service.
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) confirms, in Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 on 16 February 1981, and that this is the highest rank he held while serving on active duty.
On 29 November 1983, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting a retirement date of 1 March 1984, in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8. Item 6 (Highest Grade Served on Active Duty) confirms that the highest rank and pay grade he attained while serving on active duty was also MSG/E-8.
On 30 November 1983, the applicant’s release from active duty (REFRAD) and placement on the Retired List the following day was directed in Orders Number 230-11, issued by Headquarters, 1st Personnel Command, APO New York 09081. This order also confirms that the effective date of his REFRAD was
29 February 1984, and that his authorized retired rank and pay grade were MSG/E-8.
A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 30 November 1983, that was prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing, contained the entry MSG/E-8 in Item 2 (Active Duty Grade), Item 3 (Retired Grade), Item 8 (Highest Grade Attained), and Item 10 (Retired Pay Grade). This document also confirms that he was placed on the Retired List on 1 March 1984, and that he had completed a total of 26 years, 11 months, and 8 days active military service.
The record also contains a properly constituted separation document
(DD Form 214), which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his REFRAD. This document shows that on 29 February 1984, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 12, Army Regulation 635-200, for the purpose of retirement. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 on that date.
On 25 June 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List. The AGDRB determined that he had never been promoted to any rank and pay grade above MSG/E-8. Therefore, he was retired in the highest grade he satisfactorily held while on active duty.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 12 sets policies and procedures for voluntary retirement of soldiers because of length of service. Paragraph 12-3b states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the Regular or Reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement as directed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961 (10 USC 3961).
Paragraph 12-6 (Advancement on the Retired List) contains guidance on the advancement of soldiers on the Retired List. 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. The legal authority for this action is provided by Title 10 of the Untied States Code, section 3964
(10 USC 3964).
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 have been promoted to SGM/E-9 and advanced to that rank and pay grade on the Retired List based on his record of service. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. By law and regulation, enlisted soldiers are retired in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD, and retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army. In order to satisfy this requirement, a member must have been promoted to, held, and served in the higher rank and pay grade while on active duty, performing duties in a position authorized a higher pay grade does not satisfy this satisfactory service criteria of the advancement law.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant held the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 on the date of his separation, and that this was the highest pay grade he attained while serving on active duty. It also verifies that he was never actually promoted to, held, or served in a higher pay grade while he was on active duty, and the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
4. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concludes that the applicant was properly retired in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8, and that he does not meet the satisfactory service provision of the advancement law. Thus, he is not eligible for advancement to a pay grade higher than E-8 on the Retired List.
5. 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.
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
__TSK__ __JTM__ __HBO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074964 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1984/02/29 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 319 | 131.0900 |
| 2. 310 | 131.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005861
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. The evidence further shows that the DASA (RB), after receiving the votes and recommendations of the members of the AGDRB, determined that the applicant's service in the grade of MSG was not satisfactory due to his own misconduct and...
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 | CY2001 | 2001057694C070420
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) confirms, in block 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on 21 February 1975, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty. On 24 August 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 on the Retired List. The evidence of record confirms that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060100C070421
On 20 December 1989, a panel of this Board denied the applicant’s request to have his records corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-9, effective 1 March 1983. In effect, this decision was based on the fact that the Board disagreed with the ARPERSCOM position that there was no evidence to show the applicant was reduced to SFC/E-7 at the time he voluntarily entered active duty in that rank and pay grade. Further, there is no evidence contained in the record that shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084181C070212
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 rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD, and retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served...
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 20090021378
The applicant's military records show he served in the Regular Army from 10 September 1975 to 9 September 1978 and in the U.S. Army Reserve from 10 September 1978 to 25 June 1979. He provided a copy of his letter to the AGDRB, dated 19 November 2009, wherein he stated although he had worn the E-9 rank and served as a SGM for over 3 years, he had not completed 2 years of service after completing the Sergeants Major Academy, so he was retired as an E-8. As a result, the Board recommends that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082924C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The separation document (DD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059179C070421
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 highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily. There are no provisions of law or regulation that provide for the advancement on the Retired List of an enlisted member who served in a commissioned officer grade in the ARNG not on active duty. The record...