| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be promoted and advanced on the Retired List to the rank and pay grade of sergeant major/E-9 (SGM/E-9).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was promoted to the rank of SGM while on active duty and he subsequently retired in the rank and pay grade of master sergeant/E-8 (MSG/E-8) because he failed to satisfy his time in grade service obligation. He states that he has been retired for 10 years, and he is now eligible for advancement on the Retired list. In support of his application, he submits his separation document (DD Form 214), two pay and allowance computer printouts, a Certificate Of Retirement, three Letters of Congratulations acknowledging his promotion selection to SGM/E-9, and a copy of an article from the Army Times that contains a promotion list that includes his name and promotion sequence number for promotion to SGM/E-9.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 October 1986, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing a total of 20 years and 17 days of active military service. The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he held the pay grade of E-8 the time of his REFRAD. His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) and a Data For Retired Pay (DA Form 3713) on file both show that the highest pay grade he attained while serving on active duty was E-8. Further, his record contains no orders showing he was promoted to SGM/E-9.
There is a Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) memorandum, on file, Subject: Request For Waiver of Service Obligation, dated 17 September 1986, which was signed by the Chief, Separations and Appeals Branch. It confirms that the applicant’s voluntary retirement was erroneously approved by the local retirement approval authority. It further indicates that this approval was invalid because the applicant failed to inform local personnel officials of his existing service obligation for the Sergeants Major Academy. However, it also shows that the submitted a declination statement for promotion to SGM/E-9 in order to avoid attending the Sergeants Major Academy, and that based on this PERSCOM officials approved his retirement for 1 November 1986.
On 17 October 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement to the rank and pay grade of SGM/E-9 on the Retired List. It found he had an approved retirement at the time of his promotion selection and that he voluntarily declined the promotion to avoid attending the Sergeants Major Academy and incurring a two-year service obligation.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 12 contains the policy, procedure pertaining to voluntary retirement and paragraph 12-8 outlines specific eligibility requirements. Paragraph 12-8d states, in pertinent part, that soldiers who have an approved retirement are in a non-promotable status and they will not be promoted unless a request for a withdrawal of their retirement application is approved. Paragraph 12-8d(1) states, in pertinent part, that individuals who are promoted to pay grade of E-7, E-8, or E-9, incur a two year service obligation and this obligation must be completed prior to voluntary retirement.
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. In order to meet the satisfactory service provisions of the law a member must have actually been promoted to, paid as, and served in the higher grade while on active duty.
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 contention of the applicant that he was promoted to the rank of SGM prior to his retirement and he is now eligible for advancement on the Retired List, but if finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. By law, members are retired in the grade they hold on the date of their REFRAD, and in order to be advanced on the Retired List it must be determined that a member satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher grade. To receive a satisfactory service determination under this statutory provision, a member must have been promoted to, paid as, and satisfactorily served in a higher pay grade while on active duty.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was in a non-promotable status based on his approved retirement, and that he signed a promotion declination statement in order to avoid completing a service obligation. As a result, he was properly placed on the Retired List in the pay grade E-8. Thus, lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds insufficient evidence to show that he satisfactorily served on active duty as a SGM/E-9, and did not did not satisfy the provisions of the advancement law. Therefore, the Board finds no error or injustice related to the applicant’s retired rank, and it is compelled to deny the requested relief.
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
__AAO__ ___JPI___ __RKS __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080436 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/14 |
| 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. | 129.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018371
The evidence of record shows that the applicant was conditionally promoted to SGM effective 1 November 1995, and served in that grade for 3 years, 11 months, and 7 days. He is also entitled to correction to his records to show he was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank and pay grade SGM, E-9, effective 22 May 2002, and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade SGM, E-9, effective 26 September 2006, and entitled to appropriate pay and allowances associated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021378
The applicant's military records show he served in the Regular Army from 10 September 1975 to 9 September 1978 and in the U.S. Army Reserve from 10 September 1978 to 25 June 1979. He provided a copy of his letter to the AGDRB, dated 19 November 2009, wherein he stated although he had worn the E-9 rank and served as a SGM for over 3 years, he had not completed 2 years of service after completing the Sergeants Major Academy, so he was retired as an E-8. As a result, the Board recommends that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009206
Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Active Duty Enlisted Promotion) states, in pertinent part, that the date of rank for a Soldier who does not complete the required level of NCOES training will be the previous date of rank successfully held at the reduced grade. The applicant voluntarily applied for retirement prior to completing his promotion ADSO or completing his NCOES for promotion to SGM. On that date, Army Regulation 600-8-19 required the applicant to be reduced to MSG because he had not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006052
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was appointed to the rank of command sergeant major (CSM)/pay grade E-9 and that he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of CSM (E-9). The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in: a. item 2 (Grade) the entry "SGM E-9"; b. item 3 (Date of Rank) the entry "29 SEP 67"; c. item 31 (Foreign Service) that he served overseas in USAREUR in Germany from 10 September 1966 through 17 September 1969; d. item 33...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012431
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Evidence of record shows that the applicant accepted a conditional promotion to sergeant major knowing that he was required to complete the SMC in order to retain his rank. The applicant was separated from the ARNG less than two months from his promotion date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001278
The applicant states, in effect, that his records should be corrected to reflect that he retired in the rank of SGM E-9 because he was legally promoted and even if there are no financial awards granted, he deserves the title. A review of the applicants official records failed to reveal a copy of the promotion orders or any indication that the promotion to the pay grade of E-9 was ever effected. Paragraph 7-52 of the regulation in effect at the time provided that individuals promoted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019302
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for retroactive promotion to command sergeant major (CSM)/E-9 in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). The applicant provides: * Self-authored statement and 4 self-authored notes * List of qualifications and accomplishments * Two letters from the Sergeants Major Academy, dated 11 October 1991 and 17 October 1991 * Memorandum of request for promotion consideration to sergeant major (SGM), undated * Order Number 296-00053, dated 23...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018197
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090018197 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, a promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/pay grade E-9. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was promoted to SGM/pay grade E-9 prior to his retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025364
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Title 10 of the United States Code, section 12731 provides the legal authority for age and service (non-regular) retirements. Therefore, absent any evidence that his medical condition rendered him unfit for duty or disqualified him from attendance at the SGMC, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a conclusion his reduction was unjust or that would support changing his retired grade.
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...