| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-8.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that an injustice was committed upon him during the course of his military service as a result of his not being promoted to the pay grade of E-8. In the enclosed self-authored statement, the applicant outlines highlights of his career from 1949, when he was selected for promotion to the rank and pay grade of master sergeant/E-7 (MSG/E7) through his retirement in 1964. He claims that at the time of his promotion to the pay grade of E-7, a soldier was only required to have two years of time in grade in order to qualify for promotion to the pay grade of E-8. However, at the time of his retirement in 1964, he had served fifteen years in the pay grade of E-7 and had never been given the opportunity to enjoy the privilege and honor of promotion to the pay grade of E-8.
The applicant concludes his statement by indicating that he is now 82 years old and he is more proud of his Army service than anything else he has done in life. He requests that the Board recognize, as he has now recognized, that his not being promoted to the pay grade of E-8 was unjust. The applicant’s complete self-authored statement is enclosed and was considered by the Board during its review of this case. In addition, the applicant provides several military documents that confirm he was recognized and received awards for several significant acts of achievement and service.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: In effect, that the application and attachments are submitted in accordance with Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1553.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 June 1964, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 22 years, 2 months, and 16 days of active military service.
The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24) that documents his service from
17 February 1950 through his REFRAD on 30 June 1964, confirms in Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7 on 19 August 1949. Section I also provides confirmation that this was the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty.
In addition, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents or orders that give any indication that he was selected and recommended for promotion to the pay grade of E-8 by a properly constituted local or Department of the Army (DA) promotion selection board; or that he was ever actually promoted to or held a pay grade above E-7 during his active duty tenure.
On 16 April 1964, the applicant submitted an application for retirement (DA Form 2339), in which he requested retirement on 1 June 1964, in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7. On 21 May 1964, the applicant’s retirement was approved at DA, and Special Order Number 128, Paragraph 275, was published. This DA Special Order directed the applicant’s REFRAD on 30 June 1964, and his placement on the Retired List on 1 July 1964, in the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7.
A Data for Retired Pay (AGPZ Form 977), dated 24 May 1964, that was prepared on the applicant during his retirement processing contains the following entries in the items indicated: Item 3 (Retired Grade), MSG/E-7; Item 4 (Active Duty Grade), MSG/E-7; Item 6 (Highest Grade Attained), MSG/E-7; and
Item 17 (Retired Pay Grade), E-7.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his REFRAD lists the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-7 in Item 3 (Grade, Rate, or Rank). The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 34 (Signature of Person Being Separated), thereby verifying that the information contained in this document was correct at the time it was issued.
In 1958, the Army changed the enlisted rank structure. This resulted in the rank title of master sergeant (MSG) corresponding with the pay grade of E-8; the rank title of SFC corresponding to the pay grade E-7; and the rank title of staff sergeant (SSG) corresponding to the pay grade E-6. However, this structure change did not impact either the rank title or the pay grade of personnel that had been promoted prior to the change, which is the operative policy in this case. In other words, unless subsequently promoted under the new system, members who had been promoted to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change retained those rank titles and the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, which were E-7 for MSG and E-6 for SFC.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961, provides the legal authority for retirement grades. It states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement.
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 based on his outstanding record of service, it was unjust for him to be denied promotion to the pay grade of E-8. However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record shows that from 19 August 1949 through 1958, when the Army rank structure was changed, the applicant held the highest enlisted pay grade that existed, which was E-7. As a result, the pay grade of E-8 did not exist for about nine of the fifteen years the applicant was a MSG/E-7. Further, his record is void of any indication that he was ever recommended for promotion to the pay grade of E-8 by a properly constituted local or DA promotion selection board during the period 1958 through 1964, which would have been required for him to be promoted. Thus, notwithstanding his outstanding record of service, the Board finds no basis for granting the requested relief.
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
__sac ___ ___ra___ ___pm __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081748 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1964/06/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008424C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the retired pay grade of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to E-7. Therefore, there is no error or injustice related to the FSM’s retired grade of SFC/E-6 and no basis to changing it at this time. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 31 August 1964, the date of the FSM’s separation for retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001064C070205
The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains an Application for Retirement (DA Form 2339), dated 12 December 1963, which confirms that he requested voluntary retirement, in the rank of SFC and pay grade of E-6, on 31 March 1964. Enclosed with this letter, is an extract of DA Special Orders Number 34, which authorized his retirement in the rank of SFC and pay grade of E-6, and his placement on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade on 1 April 1964. The evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072147C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. This document confirms in Item 9 (Grade In Which Retired), that the applicant’s authorized retired rank and pay grade was MSG/E-7. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to the rank of MSG with a corresponding pay grade of E-7 on 20 May 1948, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066562C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The FSM’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains an Application for Retirement (DA Form 2339), dated 9 January 1961, which confirms that he requested voluntary retirement, in the rank of SFC and pay grade of E-6, on 31 March 1961. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the FSM’s record should be corrected to reflect the pay grade E-7 corresponding to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078747C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24), covering his period of service from 21 July 1949 through his retirement date of 31 January 1956, confirms in Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) that on 8 August 1955, he was promoted to rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6, which was the rank he held on the date of his separation for the purpose of retirement. Further, current regulatory policy mandates that in order to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010167C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show that he served and retired in the rank of master sergeant/pay grade E-8. The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. The preponderance of the available evidence shows that the applicant was promoted to the rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-7, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000031
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The FSM's military personnel record contains an AGPZ Form 27 (Statement of Service Enlisted Personnel - Retirement), dated 6 June 1960, which was completed for the FSM during his retirement processing. He held the rank of SFC and pay grade E-6 on the date of his REFRAD for the purpose of retirement, 31 May 1961, and he was appropriately placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade on 1 June 1961.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004539C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 April 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040004539 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to the rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-6 on 1 September 1951. The evidence of record also shows that the applicant was REFRAD and placed on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005285
An AGUZ Form 658 (Determination of Grade for Retirement, Advancement, Separation or Retirement Pay), dated 14 May 1974, shows the FSM was promoted to MSGT (E-7) on 24 January 1953 and reduced to SFC (E-6) on 16 December 1957 (per orders). Records show the FSM held the grade of E-6 when he was retired from active duty on 31 May 1964 and he was placed on the Retired List in that grade. Records show the FSM was advanced on the Retired List to the grade of SFC (E-7), effective 16 May 1974,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007203
The applicant's records show his rank, date of rank, and grade history as follows: a. Corporal (CPL), permanent grade (P), pay grade E-4 with a date of rank of 31 August 1950, in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army Enlistment Program); b. On 23 October 1967, the applicant signed a statement declining his recommendation for promotion to pay grade E-7 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200 and stated that he was retiring and did not wish to have a two-year service...