| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | ||
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on the Retired List.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like his records reviewed in order to determine his eligibility to be advanced from the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) to SSG/E-6 under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 December 1988, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of
SGT/E-5.
On 21 July 1988, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 31 December 1988, in the rank and pay grade of 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 1 August 1982. It also shows that on 2 December 1983, he was reduced to specialist/E-5, due to his own misconduct; and on 1 October 1985, he was laterally appointed to SGT/E-5.
The record confirms that the applicant was reduced to the pay grade of E-5 as a result of his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on his operating a motor vehicle while drunk, which resulted in property damage. In addition, he accepted NJP on two subsequent occasions for fighting with another soldier and for ration control card violations while he was serving in Korea.
The separation document issued to him on the date of his separation,
31 December 1988, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD. On 18 August 1988, Orders Number 83-57, published by the 509th Personnel Services Center, APO San Francisco 96224-0289, directed the applicant’s REFRAD on 31 December 1988, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 January 1989, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5.
On 2 July 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 based on the applicant’s record of NJP after he was promoted to SSG/E-6.
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 the pay grade of 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
__ FNE_ _ ___TSK_ __LEM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075532 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1988/12/31 |
| 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 | 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 | 2002077019C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 July 1989, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 30 September 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 On 3 August 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement to SSG/E-6 on the Retired List.
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 | 2002077845C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 15 August 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), for assaulting an NCO. On 20 August 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List.
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 | CY2002 | 2002075526C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 28 June 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List.
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 | CY2002 | 2002076050C070215
On 17 September 1990, the appropriate authority denied the applicant’s appeal. The separation document issued to him on 30 June 1991, the date of his separation, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD. 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 | 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 | CY2004 | 20040001245C070208
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. There is no such evidence of a fatal legal or factual error that would support setting aside the punishment imposed on the applicant, to include the reduction now in question. Advancement under this provision of the law is...