| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | ||
| Mr. Patrick H. McGarthy, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his retired grade be changed from sergeant/E-5 to staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).
3. The applicant’s military records show that on 19 March 1992, he was honorably released from active duty, by reason of permanent disability, for the purpose of retirement.
4. The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he was promoted to SSG/E-6, which is the highest rank and pay grade he held while on active duty, on 1 September 1983. It also shows that he was reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 on 8 January 1987.
5. The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of a Promotion Point Worksheet (DA Form 3355), dated 28 April 1989, which confirms that he was recommended for promotion to SSG/E-6. In addition, his Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-A), dated 7 June 1991, confirms that he was on the promotion list for SSG/E-6 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 74D (Information Systems Operator), and had 697 promotion points.
6. In late 1991, the applicant was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC). The PEB evaluated the applicant’s medical condition and determined that he was physically unfit for duty, and it recommended a combined physical disability rating of 20 percent and that the applicant be permanently retired by reason of physical disability.
7. Orders Number D46-71, dated 5 March 1992, issued by US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s REFRAD due to disability retirement and his placement on the Retired List the following day. Accordingly, on 19 March 1992, he was separated in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, and on 20 March 1992, he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.
8. Army Regulation 635-5 establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB). Chapter 1, paragraph 5, states, in pertinent part, that during separation processing, the AGDRB will review cases and determine the highest grade in which a soldier has served satisfactorily for purposes of service/physical disability retirement, computation of retired pay, or separation for physical disability.
9. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1372 provides the legal authority for the grade to be awarded to members retiring for physical disability. It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; or the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his retired rank and pay grade should be corrected, and it finds this claim has merit. By law, members retiring for physical disability are entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; or the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability.
2. The evidence of record confirms that a grade determination was not accomplished during the applicant’s physical disability separation processing, as is required by regulation. Further, the record confirms that the applicant was on a valid promotion standing list to SSG/E-6 prior to his disability processing.
3. In view of the applicant’s promotion list status, the Board presumes that he would have been promoted to SSG/E-6 at some point prior to his normal retirement had his service not been cut short because of his physical disability. Thus, in the interest of justice and equity, the Board finds that his record should be corrected to show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6. Further, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to provide him all back pay and allowances due as a result.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the rank and pay grade of the individual concerned was SSG/E-6 on 20 March 1992, the date he was placed on the Retired List by reason of permanent disability.
BOARD VOTE:
__KAN__ __GJW _ __PHM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Kathleen A. Newman___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002078455 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/23 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014758C071029
Chester A. Damian | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It states, in pertinent part, that a commissioned officers of the Army who retires will be retired in the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily for not less than six months. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to CPT on 1 January 1990, while serving on active duty, and that he served in that grade both on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013120
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record confirms the applicant held and satisfactorily served on active duty in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 from 25 January 1974 through 29 April 1975. Thus, it would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice and equity to correct the applicants record to show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on 5 November 1990, and by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024097
It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability that resulted in retirement. In accordance with statutory and regulatory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058739C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) and that he be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result. In this case, the evidence of record confirms the applicant was twice reduced from the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 for cause and that his service as a SSG/E-6 was undistinguished. Therefore, the Board finds that his service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015758
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015758 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 July 2011, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened in Washington, D.C. determined that he was unfit for duty and recommended that he be retired by reason of permanent disability with a 100% disability rating. The evidence of record confirms the applicant held and satisfactorily served in the rank and pay grade of PSG/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008675
The applicant states: * On 25 June 2010, he was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 15, which resulted in a reduction in grade from E-6 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * The punishment was unjust and unreasonable based on the charges, his performance, and Army background * There was no corrective action taken and his unit never recognized his illness which eventually led to him being hospitalized and medically retired * He held the grade of E-6 since 2007 and performed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000165
Section III (Service Data) of the applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) dated 18 January 2011 shows she was reduced to the following ranks and grades on the dates indicated: * SPC - 18 August 2009 * PFC - 29 July 2010 7. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to PFC/E-3 on 2 July 2003 and satisfactorily held this grade until she was REFRAD, transferred to the USAR, and promoted to SPC/E-4 on 1 May 2004. As a result, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014000
The applicant requests, in effect, to be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the highest grade he satisfactorily held for the purpose of computation of disability retirement. The applicant states the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) found the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served, for the purpose of computation of disability retirement/separation pay, was staff sergeant (SSG)/ E-6. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000855C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, a correction of his retired rank and pay grade to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7). The evidence of record confirms the applicant held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date he was REFRAD for the purpose of disability retirement and that he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000528
The applicant states: * he does not believe the Board had all the evidence to make a proper determination of his case * he performed in the rank of SSG successfully; he challenges anyone to read his records and disagree * he performed the duties on three different occasions as a sergeant first class (SFC) and he was rated top block and among the best * he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal in that rank and he served 14 years in that rank * he does not believe one incident means his...