| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his retired rank and pay grade be changed to staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was medically discharged in the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5), but he should have been retired in the highest rank and pay grade he held, which was SSG/E-6. He states that he is presently receiving compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and this change to his retired rank and pay grade would assist him in better caring for and supporting his family.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 20 August 1993, while a member of the Army National Guard (ARNG) serving in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement, by reason of a permanent physical disability.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the applicant was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on 15 February 1989, and that this was the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty. It also shows that the applicant was reduced to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 for cause on 1 July 1992.
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of Orders Number 14-1, which directed his reduction to SGT/E-5, effective 1 July 1992, for misconduct.
On 17 June 1993, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened to evaluate the applicant’s medical condition. The PEB determined that the applicant was medically unfit for further service, and it recommended he receive a physical disability rating of 30 percent. Based on its medical findings, the PEB further recommended that the applicant be permanently retired from the service by reason of physical disability. On 7 July 1993, the applicant concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations and waived his right to a formal hearing of his case.
On 23 July 1993, Orders Number D139-12 were published by the United States Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). Theses orders directed the applicant’s relief from assignment and duty because of physical disability and his retirement on 20 August 1993.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1372(3) contains the legal authority for assignment retirement grades for members being retired by reason of physical disability. It states, in pertinent part, that a member who is retired for physical disability is entitled to the highest temporary grade or rank in which he served satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Armed Force from which he is retired.
Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policy for rendering a satisfactory service determination on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. It states, in pertinent part, that generally service will not be considered to have been satisfactory when reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, due to misconduct.
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 his retired rank and pay grade should have been established as SSG/E-6, which was the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. By law and regulation, a member retired by reason of physical disability is entitled to be retired in the highest rank and pay grade he satisfactorily held, as determined by the Secretary of the Army. However, generally service will not be considered to have been satisfactory when reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, due to misconduct.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date he was REFRAD, and that he had been reduced to that rank and pay grade due to his own misconduct on 1 July 1992. Therefore, the Board finds that his request to change his retired rank and pay grade to SSG/E-6 is not warranted.
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
__WTM__ __CJP _ __YM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079417 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/30 |
| 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 | 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 | 20130000604
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. On 31 July 1992, the applicant was retired from the military in the rank of SGT/E-5 with more than 20 years of active service. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3964, states that each retired member of the Army who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his active service plus his...
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 | CY2013 | 20130003630
BOARD DATE: 14 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003630 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The IG investigation indicated that he met the standard and that his promotion packet should have been sent forward to the promotion board. The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicants service in the highest grade he held (pay grade E-6) was satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013481
On 12 September 2007, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, MO, published Orders P09-791175 retiring the applicant and placing him on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SGT/E-5 effective 23 July 2007, the date he turned age 60, in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12731. In the applicant's case, the evidence of record shows he was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 12 April 1971 and held that grade until his honorable discharge on 25 March 1974. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007703
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The Retired Activities Directorate will screen each retirement applicants record to determine the highest grade held by him or her during his or her military service. Therefore, he was correctly placed on the Retired List in the rank and grade of PVT/E-1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010952
On the following date, he was placed on the retired list in the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5. Orders were published that show the applicant retired from active duty on 31 January 2014 and he was placed on the retired list in the rank of SGT/E-5 on 1 February 2014. Accordingly, his service in the rank of SSG/E-6 should be determined to have been unsatisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002888
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he was retired in the rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 and to show he was a SSG/E-6 from October 1991 to February 1993. The evidence of record shows the applicant was serving in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 when he was discharged from the NCARNG on 18 April 2005. Based on the available evidence, he is not entitled to correction of his record to show he held the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 from October 1991 to February 1993.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018980
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was retired in the highest rank/pay grade he held, which was staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 instead of sergeant (SGT)/E-5. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 15 November 1993 and he served in that rank/pay grade in an active status until he was discharged from the USAR on 19 April 1995. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002338
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: Separation Documents (DD Forms 214), dated 25 October 1968 and 25 October 1971; Retiree Account Statement; Report of Physical Examination (SF 88), dated 17 June 1987; Retirement Credit Record (NGB Form 23); and identification (ID) card. The evidence of record in this case shows that the applicant had attained the rank of...