| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was reduced in rank as a result of his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in 1982. He claims that he was told that 10 years after his separation, he could request a review to determine the highest rank he satisfactorily held while serving on active duty.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 March 1987, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5).
On 21 April 1986, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 31 March 1987, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5.
A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 2 October 1986, prepared
during his retirement processing, contains the entry SGT/E-5 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 SGT/E-5.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms in item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) that he was promoted to SSG/E-6, the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty, on 17 December 1977. It also shows that on 20 February 1982, he was reduced to SGT/E-5, due to his own misconduct. The reduction was the result of punishment imposed by an Article 15, based on his violating a general regulation by fraternizing with a female private trainee.
The separation document issued to him on the date of his separation,
31 March 1987, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD. On 22 May 1986, Order Number 099-031, published by Headquarters, United States Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, directed the applicant’s REFRAD on 31 March 1987, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 April 1987, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5.
On 28 June 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List. The AGDRB determined the applicant should not be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List because he did not serve satisfactorily in that rank and pay grade. This unsatisfactory service determination was the result of his receiving Article 15 punishment for fraternizing with a female trainee, which resulted in his reduction to SGT/E-5.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the Regular Army 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. 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.
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 request that he be advanced to SSG/E-6 on the Retired List, but it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to SGT/E-5 due to his own misconduct, based on Article 15 punishment. Thus, the Board concurs with the determination of the AGDRB that the applicant’s service as a SSG/E-6 was unsatisfactory, and it concludes that his advancement to that rank and pay grade on the Retired List is not warranted.
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
__RVO__ __RTD__ __KWL__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075526 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1987/03/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 319 | 131.0900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076052C070215
He now requests that his record be reviewed and that he be advanced to this rank and pay grade on the Retired List. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5). The separation document issued to him on 31 August 1987, the date of his separation, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD.
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 | CY2009 | 20090006454
On 7 August 2008, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicants request for advancement on the Retired List. The applicants claim that he should be advanced on the Retired List to his highest grade held of SSG/E-6 because of his excellent service subsequent to the incident that resulted in his reduction to the lower grade which includes him being awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the 5th award of the Good Conduct Medal for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060306C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 4 October 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be advanced to SFC/E-7 on the Retired List but after reviewing his overall record of service, the Board concludes it concurs with the AGDRB determination that his service as a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071783C070403
It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4 on the date of his separation and that on the following day he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade. 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: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced from the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 due to his own...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065101C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 21 November 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 due to his own misconduct, as a result of accepting NJP for a 13 day AWOL offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075532C070403
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 applicant requests...
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 | CY2002 | 2002068052C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 1 October 1990, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be retired on 30 September 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SPC/E-4. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010831
Having had prior active enlisted service from 2 August 1965 to 1 August 1968 and 13 January 1970 to 18 May 1974 (he was discharged as a specialist five (SP5)/E5), the applicant's records show he enlisted in the Massachusetts ARNG (MAARNG) on 8 March 1979 for 3 years in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5. Title 10, USC, section 3963 (Highest grade held satisfactorily: Reserve enlisted member reduced in grade not as a result of the member's misconduct) states a Reserve enlisted member of the Army...