| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | ||
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) on the Retired List.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no argument or explanation in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 January 1993, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5), for the purpose of retirement. At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 20 years and 19 days of active military service.
The applicant’s record confirms that on 3 August 1982, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, which is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.
The record shows that the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history while holding the rank of SSG/E-6. On 18 November 1986, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for assaulting a soldier. The punishment included an oral reprimand and a suspended reduction. On 19 April 1989, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated (DWI).
On 18 December 1989, the applicant accepted NJP for being disrespectful to a commissioned officer and for using provoking words that were racial in nature, towards his first sergeant and a specialist. His punishment for these offenses included his reduction to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5.
On 1 November 1991, the applicant was notified that the 1991 Master Sergeant Selection/Sergeant Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Board, after a comprehensive review of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP. The applicant was allowed to remain on active duty until reaching retirement eligibility.
On 31 January 1993, the applicant was REFRAD for the purpose of retirement. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him on that date confirms that at the time he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5.
On 9 May 2003, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List. The AGRDB determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the pay grade of E-6 because while holding that rank, he accepted NJP on two separate occasions, for assaulting a soldier and disrespect; and he received a LOR for DWI.
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, as determined by the Secretary of the Army.
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 he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List. However, it finds this claim lacks merit.
2. The Board concurs with the findings of the AGRDB that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 based on his disciplinary history while holding that rank and given he was reduced from that rank due to his own misconduct. Therefore, the Board concludes the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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:
_EP_ __JI__ __R___ GRANT
________ __________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ____ _____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090261 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 306 | 129.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065101C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 21 November 2001, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) evaluated the applicant’s record to determine if he should be advanced to the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the Retired List. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 due to his own misconduct, as a result of accepting NJP for a 13 day AWOL offense.
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 | CY2011 | 20110001273
Her records in the integrated Personnel Management Records System (iPERMS) shows she retired from the USAR due to completion of 20 or more years of active Federal service and was placed on the retired list in the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5 on 1 February 1997. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3964, provides that retired personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completion of 30 years of...
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 | 2002080516C070215
The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-7. However, on 17 October 2002, the AGRDB determined that the applicant was not eligible for advancement, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, because he was never promoted to, paid as, or served in a rank and pay grade above SSG/E-6 while on active duty and it denied his request. By law, in order to be advanced...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080499C070215
The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-7. However, on 17 October 2002, the AGRDB determined that the applicant was not eligible for advancement, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, because he was never promoted to, paid as, or served in a rank and pay grade above SSG/E-6 while on active duty and it denied his request. By law, in order to be advanced...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071781C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 March 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 on the Retired List. Based on his overall record of service, the Board concludes that the applicant’s retired rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 is the highest in which he satisfactorily served while on active duty; and it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082908C070215
The applicant submitted an application to the Army Grade Determination Board (AGRDB) requesting advancement on the Retired list to the pay grade of E-7. This law authorizes Reserve enlisted members of the Army to be placed on the Retired List in the highest enlisted grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily. The laws and regulations in effect at that time provided for his placement on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade he held on the date of his REFRAD, and for his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030500
The applicant requests, in effect, his retirement DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected: * in Item 12a (Date Entered AD [Active Duty] This Period) * his rank be corrected in Items 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) He also requests he be advanced on the retired list to his highest grade satisfactorily held. The applicant's records contain four DD Forms 214 covering his 20-plus years of service: * 19710928 19721017 * 19721018 19770202 *...
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: