| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | ||
| Ms. Charmane Collins | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, due to a change of his staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) date of rank (DOR), he is now eligible for advancement on the Retired List in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 September 1988, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing 20 years and 23 days of active military service.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms in block 18 (appointments and reductions) that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on 14 October 1976, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he attained while serving on active duty. In addition, there are no documents contained in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) that suggest that he ever held or served in a higher rank and pay grade while he was on active duty.
A Data For Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing, contains the entry SSG/E-6 in Item 2 (Active Duty Grade), Item 3 (Retired Grade), Item 8 (Highest Grade Attained), and Item 10 (Retired Pay). These entries verify that SSG/E-6 was the rank and pay grade he held on the date of his REFRAD, and that it was the highest he held while serving on active duty. This document further confirms that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on 1 October 1988.
The separation document (DD Form 214), issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that at the time of his separation he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6.
Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, provides that a retired enlisted member or warrant officer of the Army who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the Retired List totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily. The term “highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily” does not apply to a member who simply served in a position calling for a higher rank and pay grade. In order to meet the satisfactory service provisions of the law a member must have actually been promoted to, paid as, and served in the higher grade while on active duty.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that based on SSG/E-6 DOR he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim. By law, in order to be advanced on the Retired List a member must have satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher rank and pay grade. In order to receive a satisfactory service determination under this statutory provision, a member must have actually been promoted to, paid as, and satisfactorily served in a higher rank and pay grade while on active duty.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, and that this is the highest rank he attained and in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds insufficient evidence to show that he was ever promoted to SFC/E-7 while he was on active duty. Time served in a lower grade or service in a position authorized a higher grade alone do not meet the satisfactory service provision of the advancement law. Thus, the Board finds no error or injustice related to the applicant’s retired rank and it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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 _ __JEA___ ___CC__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076381 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| 1. | 129.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063318C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank and pay grade in which he served on active duty under the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964 (10 USC 3964), which in his case is SFC/E-7. On 23 January 1968, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting...
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 | CY2002 | 2002075776C070403
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. By law, soldiers retire in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD for retirement, and in order to be advanced on the Retired List, a soldier must have satisfactorily served on active...
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 | 2002068213C070402
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120006244
c. He recently received correspondence from the recorder of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) informing him that it appears he should have been placed on the Retired List in the grade of E-7 and he should apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of his case. 10 USC, section 3964 (Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members), provides that each retired member of the Army covered by subsection (b) who is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074792C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 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 | CY2001 | 2001065290C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 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. There are no provisions of law or regulation that provide for the advancement of an enlisted member who served in higher rank and pay grade in a Reserve Component, not on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004845
The applicant states, in effect: * Public Law 230, Title 10, and Section 3964 entitle him to promotion to SFC * The "P" shown in item 13 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Date Awarded) of his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) indicates he was promotable 3. In his self-authored statement the applicant contends he should be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade held satisfactorily while on active duty, under the provisions of Title...