| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | ||
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the highest grade he held on the Retired List.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his records will show that he meets the requirement for consideration for advancement under Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 July 1992, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5).
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms in item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) that he was promoted to staff sergeant /E-6 (SSG/E-6), the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty, on
15 December 1979. It also shows that on 25 April 1989, he was reduced to SGT/E-5, due to his own misconduct.
The applicant’s disciplinary history while serving in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three separate occasions for driving under the influence (DUI). The first was on
4 November 1982, the second on 29 November 1984, and the third on 25 April 1989, which resulted in his reduction to SGT/E-5.
On 3 December 1991, Order Number 337-237, published by Headquarters, United States Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky, directed the applicant’s REFRAD on 31 July 1992, and his placement on the Retired List the following day, 1 August 1992, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation,
31 July 1992, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD.
On 20 November 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List. The AGDRB determined the applicant should not be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List because he did not serve satisfactorily in that rank and pay grade. This unsatisfactory service determination was the result of his DUI related disciplinary history.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It states, in pertinent part, that retirement will be in the Regular Army or Reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement, as prescribed in Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3961, which provides the legal authority for retirement grades.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 3964, provides the legal authority for advancement on the Retired List. It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers are entitled to, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals
30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty as determined by the Secretary of the service concerned.
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 request that he be advanced to SSG/E-6 on the Retired List, but it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to SGT/E-5
due to his own misconduct, based on NJP. Thus, the Board concurs with the determination of the AGDRB that the applicant’s service as a SSG/E-6 was unsatisfactory, and it concludes that his advancement to that rank and pay grade on the Retired List is not warranted.
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
__JLP__ __ AAO _ __ MKP _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082924 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1992/07/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 319 | 131.0900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075532C070403
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006454
On 7 August 2008, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicants request for advancement on the Retired List. The applicants claim that he should be advanced on the Retired List to his highest grade held of SSG/E-6 because of his excellent service subsequent to the incident that resulted in his reduction to the lower grade which includes him being awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the 5th award of the Good Conduct Medal for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076052C070215
He now requests that his record be reviewed and that he be advanced to this rank and pay grade on the Retired List. On that date, he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5). The separation document issued to him on 31 August 1987, the date of his separation, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075526C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation document issued to him on the date of his separation, 31 March 1987, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD. On 28 June 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077845C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 15 August 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), for assaulting an NCO. On 20 August 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077019C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 July 1989, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement (DA Form 2339) requesting that he be REFRAD for the purpose of retirement on 30 September 1991, in the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 On 3 August 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement to SSG/E-6 on the Retired List.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076050C070215
On 17 September 1990, the appropriate authority denied the applicant’s appeal. The separation document issued to him on 30 June 1991, the date of his separation, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057694C070420
The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) confirms, in block 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on 21 February 1975, which is the highest rank he held while on active duty. On 24 August 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request to be advanced to the rank and pay grade of MSG/E-8 on the Retired List. The evidence of record confirms that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071783C070403
It further confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4 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. 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 was reduced from the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 due to his own...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006244
c. He recently received correspondence from the recorder of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) informing him that it appears he should have been placed on the Retired List in the grade of E-7 and he should apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of his case. 10 USC, section 3964 (Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members), provides that each retired member of the Army covered by subsection (b) who is...