| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was promoted to MSG on 1 January 1990, but was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SFC on 1 April 1990. In support of his application, he provides a copy of an extract of a Department of the Army (DA) Promotion List that shows he was selected for promotion to MSG/E-8 and DA promotion orders showing he was promoted to MSG/E-8 on
1 January 1990.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 March 1990, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 20 years and 27 days of active military service.
The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7) at that time.
On 4 April 1989, while assigned to Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, the applicant submitted an Application For Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7, on 1 April 1990, and it was approved.
Orders Number (#) 64-11, issued by Headquarters, First US Army and Fort George G. Meade, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, dated 4 April 1989, authorized the applicant’s REFRAD on 31 March 1990, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 April 1990, in the retired rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7.
Promotion Orders 205-7, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), dated 29 November 1989, authorized the applicant’s promotion to MSG/E-8 with an effective date of 1 January 1990. However, the instructions contained in this order specified that the promotion would not be valid and would be revoked if the soldier concerned was not in a promotable status on the effective date of promotion.
On 26 October 1989, the applicant submitted a request to PERSCOM to have his retirement orders revoked based on his reevaluation of his present career, the financial and emotional impact of his retirement on himself and his family, and his selection to MSG. However, this request was denied.
On 13 September 2002, the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced on the Retired List after determining that because he was not in a promotable status on the effective date of his promotion, his promotion to MSG/E-8 was not valid. Therefore, he was not eligible for advancement, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964.
Army Regulation 600-200 prescribes the policy and procedures for career management of Army personnel. Chapter 7, paragraph 7(p), in effect at the time, provided that individuals with approved voluntary retirement applications (other than those who applied for retirement in conjunction with ETS under the Qualitative Management Program) will be considered in a nonpromotable status.
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.
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 on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8, but it finds this claim lacks merit. By law and regulation, enlisted members are eligible to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest rank in which they satisfactory served while on active duty.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s voluntary retirement request was approved in April 1989, eight months prior to the effective date of his promotion, which placed him in a nonpromotable status in accordance with the applicable regulatory guidance. It further confirms, that his promotion occurred after his approved retirement and his promotion to MSG was invalid. Therefore, the Board finds the applicant does not meet the satisfactory service requirements of the law for advancement on the Retired List, and it concludes that 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
__LLS__ __BJE___ __WDP__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR200207891 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/17 |
| 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. | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058087C070420
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 evidence of record confirms that the applicant voluntarily submitted his application for retirement and this request was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075900C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 July 2002, the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced on the Retired List after determining that he was not in a promotable status on the effective date of his promotion. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s voluntary retirement request was approved in November 1981, ten months prior to the effective date...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070113C070402
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 applicant’s voluntary retirement request was approved in May 1978, four months prior to the effective date of his promotion, which placed him in a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065642C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It states, in pertinent part, that 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 as determined by the Secretary of the Army. By law and regulation, enlisted members of the Army are placed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066462C070402
As a result, the Board recommended, in effect, that all required actions be accomplished in order for the applicant’s record to be corrected to show he remained on active duty through 31 August 1990, at which time he was honorably released from active duty for the purpose of voluntary retirement, and that on 1 September 1990, he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. The Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 6 January 1993, prepared based on the Board’s 28...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060100C070421
On 20 December 1989, a panel of this Board denied the applicant’s request to have his records corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-9, effective 1 March 1983. In effect, this decision was based on the fact that the Board disagreed with the ARPERSCOM position that there was no evidence to show the applicant was reduced to SFC/E-7 at the time he voluntarily entered active duty in that rank and pay grade. Further, there is no evidence contained in the record that shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066460C070402
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. By law and regulation, enlisted soldiers are retired in the rank and pay grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD, and retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058540C070421
On 3 December 1986, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to remove him from the DA MSG/E-8 promotion standing list based on the offense for which he accepted NJP on 24 November 1986. The record also shows that this Board previously considered a request from the applicant that he be reinstated on the DA MSG/E-8 promotion list and after full consideration of his petition and all the evidence, on 25 July 1990, the Board denied relief. The record also shows that this Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067164C070402
On 5 May 1993, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be retired on 31 October 1993, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. The last promotion recorded in his record is SFC/E-7, with a date of rank of 23 October 1984. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation from active duty, which he authenticated with his signature, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075611C070403
On 1 July 1974, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be retired on 31 December 1974, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7. 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 regulation, in effect at the time, required individuals promoted to the grade of E-7, E-8, or E-9 to incur a 2 year...