Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000943C070205
Original file (20060000943C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000943


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel (before he withdrew from representing the applicant) requested
that the applicant’s records be corrected to show he retired as a Sergeant
First Class (SFC), E-7.

2.  Counsel stated the applicant was retired under Title 10, U. S. Code,
section 3914 after completing over 20 years of active duty.  He had been
promoted to SFC in 1979 and served a few periods of annual training as an
SFC.  He was administratively reduced to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 in 1985
so he could enter active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status.
When he retired from active duty, he made numerous attempts to ensure he
would be retired as an SFC.  However, the offices to which he talked failed
to interpret the statute correctly.

3.  Counsel stated the applicant was originally to be retired on 31 January
2004, but it was determined at that time that he had lung cancer.  After
extensive surgery and other treatments to remove the cancer, a Medical
Evaluation Board determined that he was ”fit for duty” and should be
allowed to retire.  The Board needs to be informed that this was an
administrative determination made solely to entitle the applicant to
retirement based upon over 20 years of active service.  In reality, he was
clearly not fit for duty.  The MEB wanted to ensure that the applicant
would receive the greatest possible financial retirement benefits.

4.  Counsel provides the 17 documents listed on the Appendix to the
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 28 August 1969.
He was promoted to Platoon Sergeant (a rank no longer in use), E-7 on 1
December 1979.  From 1 December 1979 through 27 August 1984, he completed
five periods of active duty (annual training), including one period of 15
days of annual training in Italy under the authority of Title 10, U. S.
Code.

2.  Effective 1 March 1985, the applicant accepted a voluntary reduction to
SSG for the purpose of accepting an AGR position.  He entered active duty
on            1 March 1985.

3.  On 1 July 2005, the applicant retired from active duty under the
authority of Title 10, U. S. Code, section 3914.  He was placed on the
retired list in the rank and grade of SSG, E-6.

4.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the National Guard Affairs Office, U. S Army Human Resources Command – St.
Louis.  That office recommended approval of the applicant’s request.

5.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He concurred with the advisory opinion.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations), paragraph 12-3b(1) states that retirement normally will be in
the regular or reserve grade the Soldier holds on the date of retirement.
As an exception, Army National Guard of the United States and U. S. Army
Reserve Soldiers serving on active duty at the time of retirement, in a
grade lower than their highest active duty enlisted grade, who were
administratively reduced in grade not as a result of their own misconduct,
will retire at the highest enlisted grade in which they served
satisfactorily on active duty.

7.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 3963(a) states a Reserve enlisted member
of the Army described in subsection (b) who is retired under section 3914
of this Title shall be retired in the highest enlisted grade in which the
member served on active duty satisfactorily (or, in the case of a member of
the National Guard, in which the member served on full-time National Guard
duty satisfactorily), as determined by the Secretary of the Army.
Subsection 3963(b) states this section applies to a Reserve enlisted member
who (1) at the time of retirement is serving on active duty (or, in the
case of a member of the National Guard, on full-time National Guard duty)
in a grade lower than the highest enlisted grade held by the member while
on active duty (or full-time National Guard duty); and (b) was previously
administratively reduced in grade not as a result of the member’s own
misconduct, as determined by the Secretary of the Army.

8.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 101(d)(1) defines “active duty” as full-
time duty in the active military service of the United States.  Such term
includes full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance
while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service
school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  In pertinent part, it states a Soldier may not be
retained or separated solely to increase retirement or separation benefits.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

Despite the appearance (according to counsel’s statement) that he was
inappropriately retained on active duty, it appears the applicant met the
statutory requirement to be retired as an SFC,  E-7.  He was a Reserve
component member who retired under the authority of Title 10, U. S. Code,
Section 3914 who had served satisfactorily on active duty as an E-7 prior
to accepting an administrative reduction to enter active duty in an AGR
status.  The applicant’s records should be corrected accordingly.

BOARD VOTE:

__lds___  __jtm___  __jlp___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
showing he was placed on the retired list effective 1 July 2005 in the rank
and grade of Sergeant First Class, E-7.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000943                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060822                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |136,06                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010831

    Original file (20110010831.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Having had prior active enlisted service from 2 August 1965 to 1 August 1968 and 13 January 1970 to 18 May 1974 (he was discharged as a specialist five (SP5)/E5), the applicant's records show he enlisted in the Massachusetts ARNG (MAARNG) on 8 March 1979 for 3 years in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5. Title 10, USC, section 3963 (Highest grade held satisfactorily: Reserve enlisted member reduced in grade not as a result of the member's misconduct) states a Reserve enlisted member of the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002803

    Original file (20080002803.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080002803 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in a modified application, that his records be corrected to show his retired rank and grade as Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7, with all due retired pay. Since the evidence of record shows that the applicant was administratively reduced to SSG, E-6, not as a result of his own misconduct, it appears that he met the criteria outlined in Title 10,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007397

    Original file (20080007397.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), in effect at the time, chapter 4, provided guidance regarding the promotion of Soldiers serving in an AGR status. The fact that an error was made on the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, memorandum, dated 21 January 1992, citing the authority for his removal from the 1991 SFC Promotion List as Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 4-19f(4), instead of paragraph...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016267

    Original file (20110016267.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In arriving at the highest grade satisfactorily held, if the Soldier was transferred to the Retired Reserve on or after 25 February 1975, the retired grade will be that which an enlisted Soldier held while on active duty or in an active Reserve status for at least 185 days or 6 calendar months. The evidence of record shows the KSARNG issued orders promoting the applicant to SFC/E-7 on 4 June 1998. As a result, the Board recommends that the State Army National Guard and the Department of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011335

    Original file (20140011335.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * Retired Orders Number C-05-494313 and amendment * DA Form 1506 (Statement of Service-for Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes) * Marriage certificate * Enlisted Record Brief * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending on 31 January 1999, 31 October 1994, 12 September 1990, and 30 March 1993 * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * Orders 02-182-00032, reduction to SFC/E-7 *...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006244

    Original file (20120006244.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009467

    Original file (20070009467 .TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 30 September 2000, she retired from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program with 20 years, 5 months, and 2 days of creditable active service; her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows her rank and pay grade as MSG/E-8. The laws or the regulation the applicant was separated under that govern retirement and retired grades provide no discretionary authority that allows for the administrative reduction of an enlisted Soldier who has not completed a promotion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013111

    Original file (20090013111.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he should have been placed on the Retired List in the pay grade of E-7. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant was on active duty serving in the pay grade of E-6 at the time he retired.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025066

    Original file (20110025066.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 30 June 1995 * promotion orders to SFC/E-7 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to SFC/E-7 on 1 October 1992 and she served in this rank until 30 June 1995. Since there is no evidence of record which shows her service in the rank of SFC was not satisfactory, and in accordance with the governing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005773

    Original file (20120005773.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In order to support a change to the applicant's grade at the time of retirement or his advancement on the Retired List, there must be evidence that the applicant completed the satisfactory service requirement to complete 2 years of active duty service in the higher grade of MSG. Further, the evidence of record and independent evidence submitted by the applicant while showing he was twice promoted to 1SG/MSG and twice administratively reduced to SFC, not due to his own misconduct, while...