| 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 staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is now eligible to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade he held satisfactorily while on active duty based on his combined active and retired military service that exceeds 30 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 January 1993, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 20 years and 19 days of active military service.
The applicant’s record reveals that on 1 August 1983, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, and that this was the highest rank he held while on active duty. On 15 August 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), for assaulting an NCO. His punishment included a reduction to the rank of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5). On 9 March 1988, he again accepted NJP, for being derelict in the performance of his duties. His punishment for this offense included a reduction to specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4).
The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his release from active duty for the purpose of retirement, 31 January 1993, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4 on the date of his separation.
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. The AGDRB based their denial on the fact that he received NJP for assaulting an NCO. The AGDRB also considered the applicant’s NCO Evaluation Reports while in the pay grade of E-6, and noted that he had received a previous NJP for damage to government property. The AGDRB did conclude that the highest grade in which the applicant served satisfactorily while on active duty was the pay grade E-5, and it approved his advancement on the Retired List to that pay grade.
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 as determined by the Secretary of the Army.
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 he should be advanced to SSG/E-6 on the Retired List. However, it finds this claim lacks merit.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to SGT/E-5 due to his own misconduct. Therefore, the Board concurs with the determination of the AGDRB that his active duty service as a SSG/E-6 was not satisfactory, 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
__RVO_ __RJW___ ___KYF__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077854 |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 20100008555
The applicants military service records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 July 1958. This document shows, in pertinent part, that the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) reviewed the applicant's request for advancement to SSG/E-6 on the retired list. Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964 (Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members), provides, in pertinent part, that each retired member of the Army who is retired with less than 30...
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 | 2002073144C070403
He first enlisted in the Army in 1962, at the age of 20, and served on active duty honorably for nearly 3 years until 1965, at which time he received an early out to attend college. In October 1984, he was promoted to SSG/E-6 and served honorably in that rank and pay grade until 1988, at which time he had two misdemeanor incidents that resulted in his being reduced two ranks and pay grades. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant held the rank and pay grade of PFC/E-3 on the...
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 | CY2011 | 20110019503
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019503 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states: * the Board [Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)] failed to consider his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the cause of the misconduct that resulted in his reduction in rank * he understands the Board is not an investigative body; however, more than sufficient evidence was submitted with his original request *...
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 | CY2002 | 2002077017C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. 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 | CY2013 | 20130003541
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determinations) generally states that a grade determination will be based on the Soldier's overall service in the grade in question, either on active duty or other service qualifying the Soldier for service/physical disability retirement, receipt of retired pay, or separation for physical disability. The applicant contends that...