| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| MR. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | ||
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that he receive retired pay based on the retired pay formula most favorable to him.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he satisfactorily served in both the rank and pay grade of First Lieutenant/0-2 (1LT/0-2) and Chief Warrant Officer Two/W-2 (CW2/W-2). He claims that receiving retired pay as a CW2-W-2 would be more favorable to him than receiving retired pay as a 1LT/0-2, which is what he receives now. He also states that he requested to be retired as a CW2, but was told by Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) officials that would have to apply to this Board in order to accomplish that action.
3. In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of an ARPERSCOM letter, dated 19 July 2002, a copy of his retirement orders, and promotion documents for CW2 and 1LT.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant’s military records show that he completed the necessary Reserve Component service to qualify for a reserve retirement and non-regular retired pay at age 60.
2. Orders Number P07-280469, dated 19 July 2002, issued by the ARPERSCOM, authorized the applicant’s retirement and placement on the Retired List, effective 7 September 2002. These orders confirm that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of 1LT/0-2, based on his satisfactory service in that rank and pay grade from 9 August 1967 through 15 May 1969, at which time he was honorably discharged from the United States Army Reserve (USAR).
3. The applicant’s record also confirms that he was appointed a Warrant Officer One (WO1) in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 1 October 1992, and that he was promoted to CW2/W-2 on 15 May 1996. He served in that rank and pay grade in the ARNG until being transferred to the Retired Reserve on
30 November 1997.
4. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 12731 provides the legal authority for age and service retirement requirements for non-regular retirement. It states, in pertinent part, that a member is entitled, upon application, to retired pay under this provision of the law if they are at least 60 years of age; have performed at least 20 years of service; and performed the last eight years of qualifying service while a member of a Reserve Component.
5. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1401 (computation of retired pay) provides computation formulas for retired pay. Public Law 99-348 amended this section of the law to add Section b (use of most favorable formula) which states, in pertinent part, that if a person would otherwise be entitled to retired pay computed under more than one formula or of any other provision of law, the person is entitled to be paid under the applicable formula that is most favorable to them.
6. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1406 provides the legal authority for computing final retired base pay. It states, in pertinent part, that members retiring under non-regular service retirement provisions of the law are entitled to receive retired pay based on the highest grade held satisfactorily by the person at any time in the armed forces.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In providing that an individual be retired in the highest grade satisfactorily held, the law, as outlined in the most favorable pay provisions of 10 USC 1406, clearly intended to provide for the highest amount of retired pay.
2. Neither does the law, in prescribing that a member should receive retired pay based on the pay grade most favorable to them, intend that these members must forfeit those other rights and privileges vested in or enjoyed as a result of their having satisfactorily served in a commissioned or warrant officer status.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant is receiving retired pay in the highest rank and pay grade he satisfactorily held, it appears he is receiving retired pay based on a formula that is not the most favorable to him.
4. By law, a member is authorized to receive retired pay under the most favorable pay formula. Thus, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to remain on the Retired List in his commissioned officer rank of 1LT and to provide him retired pay based on the formula most favorable to him as a result of his satisfactory service as both a 1LT/0-2 and a CW2/W-2.
BOARD VOTE:
_MM___ __EP__ __RJW__ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ______GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089639 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/12/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2002/09/07 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | 10 USC 12731 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | RC Retirement |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 306 | 129.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084413C070212
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. By law, a member is authorized to receive retired pay under the most favorable pay formula. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the rank of the individual concerned as CW2 on the Retired List; by providing him retired pay based on the pay formula...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089642C070403
The applicant requests, in effect, that he receive the most favorable retired pay to which he is entitled based on his having satisfactorily served in both the rank and pay grade of Sergeant Major/E-9 (SGM/E-9) and Chief Warrant Officer Two/W-2 (CW2/W-2). The applicant’s military records show that he served in an enlisted status in the Regular Army (RA) from 12 July 1960 through 4 January 1967. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080110C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that he had satisfactorily served in an enlisted status in a rank and pay grade that would entitle him to a more favorable rate of retired pay than the retired pay he now receives based on his satisfactory service as a 1LT/0-2, which is the highest rank and pay grade he held. A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713), dated 20 March 1990, prepared on the applicant during his processing for non-regular retirement and retired pay confirms that on 3 December 1989,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059263C070421
The applicant states that he served the majority of his military career as a warrant officer, and a CW4 earns more than a captain, the grade in which he was retired. He served as a unit member as a captain until his resignation on 29 July 1977. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that; notwithstanding his placement on the Retired List in the rank of captain (0-3) as provided by Title 10, United States Code, Section 12731, and without...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061023C070421
By law, members being retired based on non-regular service age and service requirements are entitled to be placed on the Retired List and receive retired pay in the highest grade in which they satisfactory served at anytime in the Armed Forces. In addition, the law stipulates that if a member is eligible for retired pay under more than one formula, they are entitled to receive retired pay based on the formula most favorable to them. That all of the Department of the Army records related to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064115C070421
It states, in pertinent part, that a 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 they satisfactorily served on active duty. By law, when their active service plus retired service equals 30 years, warrant officers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest commissioned officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079029C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that he had satisfactorily served in an enlisted status in a rank and pay grade that would entitle him to a more favorable rate of retired pay than the retired pay he now receives based on his satisfactory service as a WO1, which is the highest rank he held. However, it concludes that denying the applicant retired pay based on the formula most favorable to him based on his satisfactory service as a MSG/E-8 would clearly violate 10 USC 1401 if it resulted in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051172C070420
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show that his retired pay is computed based on the pay grade of master sergeant (MSG), pay grade E-8 instead of chief warrant officer two (CW2), pay grade W-2. Title 10, United States Code, provides that a person entitled to retire, under section 1331 of that title, shall have his retired pay computed on the monthly basic pay of the highest grade satisfactorily held at any time. Accordingly, the applicant’s records should be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019818
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her military records to show her non-regular retirement pay from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) was based on her service as a sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7. The applicant contends, in effect, that her military records should be corrected to show her non-regular retirement pay from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) was based on her service as a sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7 because she loses approximately $50.00 per month with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072658C070403
On 1 August 2001, he was honorably discharged from the ALARNG and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Retired) in the rank of CW3, where he remained as a CW3 until he attained retirement eligibility at age 60 in January 2002 and was retired in the rank of 1LT, the highest grade he held successfully. The determination that the highest grade satisfactorily held by the applicant was 1LT (0-2) is correct; however, it is unjust in that it may deprive him, and will...