| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | 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, that he should be advanced on the Retired List in accordance with Army regulations based on his combined 30 years of active and retired military service. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), Application For Voluntary Retirement
(DA Form 2339), retirement orders, and his promotion orders.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 November 1985, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 20 years,
7 months, and 4 days of active military service.
The applicant’s record reveals that on 1 May 1978, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E7, and that this was the highest rank he held while on active duty. However, on 16 May 1984, he was convicted of striking a first lieutenant by a general court-martial (GCM). His sentence included a reduction to staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).
The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his REFRAD for retirement confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of
SSG/E-6 on that date.
On 1 August 2002, 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. The AGDRB based their denial on the fact that he was convicted of assaulting a first lieutenant by a GCM, which diminished the quality of his service as a SFC/E-7 sufficiently to render his service in that rank and pay grade unsatisfactory.
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, 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 satisfactorily served in 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, it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be advanced to SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. However, it concurs with the AGDRB determination that his active duty service in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to SSG/E-6 as a result of his conviction by a GCM, due to his own misconduct. Therefore, the Board concludes that his service as an SFC/E-7 was not satisfactory and thus, 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
__RVO_ __RJW___ ___KYF__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077017 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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 | 2002068467C070402
On 11 February 2002, 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. 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 to SSG/E-6 due to his own misconduct as a...
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 | 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...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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...