| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Member | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Lutz | 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 be reinstated to the highest rank and pay grade he held while on active duty.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 September 1991, 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).
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 on
1 November 1980, and that this was the highest rank and pay grade he was promoted to and held while serving on active duty. It also confirms that he was reduced to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on 10 October 1989, due to his own misconduct.
On 15 July 1988, a Department of the Army (DA) bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) based on his record of sub-standard performance. In addition, a DA Form 4187 (Personal Action Request), dated 18 December 1989, confirms the applicant was reduced to SGT/E-5, effective 10 October 1989, and an entry on his noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) ending in September 1989, confirms that he tested positive during a unit urinalysis screening during the rating period.
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
A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 30 July 1991, prepared during his retirement processing, contains the entry SGT/E-5 in Item 2 (Active Duty Grade), and Item 10 (Retired Pay) also confirmed that he would receive retired pay as a SGT/E-5. Item 8 (Highest Grade Held) contains the entry SSG/E-6, which confirms this is the highest grade he held while serving on active.
On 20 July 1991, Orders Number 211-531, issued by Headquarters, United States Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, directed the applicant’s REFRAD on 30 September 1991, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 October 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 30 September 1991, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD.
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. The AGDRB based its decision on the applicant’s poor evaluation reports and on his testing positive during the unit’s urinalysis screening, which resulted in his reduction to SGT/E-5 in 1989. In arriving at its decision, the AGDRB also considered the fact that a DA bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant for his poor duty performance, his overall record of service, and his disciplinary history.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and it states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular 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 and 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. A satisfactory service determination under this provision of the law requires that a member be promoted to and served in a higher rank and pay grade while serving on active duty, performing duties in a position authorized a higher rank and pay grade alone does not satisfy this requirement.
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. The Board also notes that the applicant’s poor performance of duty as a SSG/E-6 resulted in his receiving a DA imposed a bar to reenlistment under the provisions of the QMP. 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
__JHL __ __ RVO _ __BJL __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077019 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/09/30 |
| 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 | CY2003 | 2003090261C070212
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...